Watts D D
Department of Trauma Services, Fairfax Regional Trauma Center, Falls Church, Virginia, USA.
J Emerg Nurs. 1997 Feb;23(1):70-4. doi: 10.1016/s0099-1767(97)90069-6.
Although they are not totally without controversy, proxy consent and prospective consent are generally condoned as being legally and ethically acceptable alternatives to traditional informed consent by the majority of IRBs and researchers. Deferred consent, on the other hand, continues to fuel a heated debate in the emergency research community. Detractors believe that deferred consent is nothing more than unauthorized experimentation on a vulnerable population. They argue that since the subject has no means to prevent the action that it can in no way be construed as consent. Advocates assert that deferred consent allows subjects who are unable to speak for themselves access to potentially lifesaving treatments that they otherwise would be denied if they were forced to wait for proxy consent. In addition, they believe that as long as the study is carefully screened by an IRB, that the rights of the individual have been adequately protected, research that may offer benefits beyond the individual patient to society as a whole is allowed to continue. Because of this controversy, in recent years it had become almost impossible to obtain IRB approval for emergency research because of conflicting and restrictive federal regulations. However, a recent rule change by the Department of Health and Human Services has brought diverse regulations into accord and made deferred consent once more a more viable alternative to researchers. Yet acquiring IRB approval for a waiver of informed consent is by no means a simple process. The requirements are listed in Table 2, and they represent a compromise between the two views. Although researchers are allowed to use deferred consent, it is only in the most life-threatening situations in which current treatments are unsatisfactory or unproven and when the research intervention may offer direct benefit to the patient. The new regulations place a very strong emphasis on protection of the rights of the human subject. In addition, they mandate community consultation by the researcher and advance public disclosure of the nature of the study to the community in which it is to be conducted. In this way it is hoped that both the public good and the individual rights will be equally respected. Informed consent to research in the emergency setting is a difficult issue, and its complexities continue to be debated. Nurses in emergency settings, whether researchers or associates, must understand the informed consent process to ensure that adequate steps have been taken to safeguard the patient and his or her rights. Yet they must also appreciate the precautions that have been taken, and the difficult decisions that have been made, by an IRB before an emergency research study is approved. By understanding the consent process, emergency nurses can become more fully informed research participants, ensuring that the rights of the patients have been protected, while working to advance medical science through legally sound, ethically proper, clinical investigation.
尽管代理同意和前瞻性同意并非完全没有争议,但大多数机构审查委员会(IRB)和研究人员普遍认为它们在法律和伦理上是传统知情同意的可接受替代方案。另一方面,延迟同意在紧急研究领域仍引发激烈辩论。批评者认为延迟同意只不过是对弱势群体进行未经授权的实验。他们争辩说,由于受试者无法阻止该行为,所以绝不能将其视为同意。支持者声称延迟同意使那些无法为自己发声的受试者能够获得可能挽救生命的治疗,否则如果他们被迫等待代理同意,这些治疗将被拒绝。此外,他们认为只要研究经过IRB仔细审查,个人权利得到充分保护,那么可能为整个社会而非个体患者带来益处的研究就可以继续进行。由于这场争议,近年来由于相互冲突和严格的联邦法规,几乎不可能获得IRB对紧急研究的批准。然而,美国卫生与公众服务部最近的一项规则变更使各种法规达成一致,再次使延迟同意成为研究人员更可行的选择。然而,获得IRB对放弃知情同意的批准绝不是一个简单的过程。要求列于表2中,它们代表了两种观点之间的妥协。虽然研究人员被允许使用延迟同意,但这仅适用于当前治疗不满意或未经证实且研究干预可能直接使患者受益的最危及生命的情况。新法规非常强调保护人类受试者的权利。此外,它们要求研究人员进行社区咨询,并提前向研究将在其中进行的社区公开研究的性质。希望通过这种方式,公共利益和个人权利都能得到平等尊重。紧急情况下研究的知情同意是一个难题,其复杂性仍在继续辩论。紧急情况下的护士,无论是研究人员还是助手,都必须了解知情同意过程,以确保已采取适当措施保护患者及其权利。然而,他们也必须理解IRB在批准紧急研究之前所采取的预防措施以及所做出的艰难决定。通过了解同意过程,急诊护士可以成为更充分知情的研究参与者,确保患者权利得到保护,同时努力通过合法、道德适当的临床调查推动医学科学发展。