Ethical Issues With Informed Consent (Escobedo, 2007) PDF
Ethical Issues With Informed Consent (Escobedo, 2007) PDF
Crisol Escobedo, Javier Guerrero, Gilbert Lujan, Abril Ramirez, and Diana
Serrano
1 Introduction
Informed consent is a vital step to any research project. It is the process in which
a patient/participant consents to participate in a research project after being in-
formed of its procedures, risks, and benefits (Bulger, 2002)[3]. Ideally, after fully
comprehending the information about the project, the patient/participant gives
full and conscious consent for the physician/scientist to continue with the proce-
dure. There are many ethical issues that are entwined with the informed consent
process. In order to fully appreciate the importance of this process, the history
that led to its inclusion in research projects must be understood. Although in-
formed consent is designed to make sure that a participant fully understands the
procedures, benefits, and risks involved in an experiment, it is not without its
flaws in its practical application. There are many covert communication barriers
between participants and researchers that lead to misunderstandings. This pre-
vents participants from making the fully autonomous decisions sought for in the
informed consent process. Some of those barriers are related to cultural aspects
such as language differences and religious dogma. Others are related to the faith
that participants have in science such as false expectations. Having awareness
of these types of barriers is crucial for both researchers and participants. Mis-
understandings concerning the experimental procedures can lead participants to
get involved in research projects that they dont approve of. Finding themselves
in this situation can have great effects on the psychological and physical well-
being of participants. For this reason, it is ethical for researchers to account and
correct for the misunderstandings in the informed consent process. This would
ensure that participants are treated according to the ethical standards set by
the Belmont Report.
The events that led to the implementation of the principles behind the informed
consent process in scientific research were some of the most terrible in human
history. For example, the experiments conducted in Nazi Germany led to the
creation of the Nuremberg Code after the war was over. Ever since then, the
scientific community has continued to revise such principles in order to ensure the
ethical treatment of participants. The Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont
2 Bio-Ethics Issue 1, Fall 2007
Report also attest to the ongoing need to refine the rules and regulations behind
the informed consent process.
Bulger states that the principles set by the Nuremberg Code regarding informed
consent were also present in the Declaration of Helsinki (established in 1964).
However, it offered more protection to participants by establishing the need
for “independent guidance” about an experiments protocol from scientists who
were not involved in the research project. It also denied publication to all those
research projects that were not externally reviewed.
According to Bulger (2002)[3], despite the attempts to ensure the safety of partic-
ipants, unethical practices still occurred. For example, mentally disabled children
at Willowbrook Home were given hepatitis for the purpose of studying the dis-
eases natural progression. This led Congress to establish the National Research
Act of 1974. Among the rules established by Congress was the creation of the In-
stitutional Review Board (IRB) which reviews research proposals to determine if
they are ethical and thus capable of being conducted. Congress also established
a commission which would formulate the Belmont Reporta set of principles and
guidelines that are to be followed in research involving human participants. The
Belmont Report indentified three basic principles which are to be followed by all
researchers. Among these is the ethical principle of respect for persons. This is
the most important principle with regards to the consent process. This principle
establishes that all human participants are to “be treated as autonomous agents
capable of self-determination.” This implies that all participants must give in-
formed consent to be involved in a research project, they must be given adequate
information about the project, they must understand the researchs protocol, and
they must be able to withdraw from the project at any point.
E-Zine Journal: Youth Scientists and the Ethics of Current Science 3
the instructions from their physician as poor. Vasquez (1991) reports another
problem with the use of untrained translators such as other employees in a hos-
pital. This can result in violation of the patient confidentiality which can strain
the participant-researcher relationship. Research has also shown that words or
phrases translated from English to another language can result in drastic and
erroneous change of meaning (Toucher and Larson, 1998)[7]. Untrained transla-
tors fail to realize how words that are spelled almost the same in other languages
dont necessarily have the same meaning as they do in English. The word realize
in English and its Spanish counterpart realisar serve as a good example. The
English word realize means coming to awareness about the situation at hand.
The Spanish word realisar means the accomplishment of an endeavor. However,
many untrained translators will translate realize as realisar.
The informed consent process is designed to give every participant the liberty to
decide whether to accept or refuse the recommended medical treatment (Bulger,
2002). However, researchers designing such a form must consider the negative
effects that participants might experience due to religious beliefs when partic-
ipating in researcher projects. Having a full understanding of the methods in-
volved in the experiment will enable a person to adequately judge if they want
to participate in the experiment. Researchers must consider how the methodol-
ogy of the experiment can come into conflict with the rules of behavior set by
a participants religion. For example, the Jehovah Witness religion places strict
rules of conduct on its followers when it comes to the type of medical attention
they can receive. According to Pimentel Perez (2002)[6], this religious group has
both moral and physical retributions towards the patients that do not follow
the rules of conduct. Jehovah Witnesses are not allowed to receive any blood
transfusions and organ transplants of any kind. However, it is important to note
that Jehovah Witness are currently making changes to their rules in order to
permit the use of certain amount of blood for surgical procedures. They believe
that such procedures will contaminate the body. One of their main arguments
against blood transfusion and organ transplant is written in The Atalaya of Sion
magazine founded by Charles Taze Rusell in the years 1879 and 1881:
“The blood of a person is the person itself, the excess, and drinking
habits, the venoms that can put someone in the edge of suicide, murder
and robbery is in the blood. The low moral values and sexual promiscuity,
the complexes of inferiority and sexual crimes... this entire are transmit-
ted during blood transfusion (as cited in Pimentel Perez, 2002).”
One can understand how experiments involving stem cell research and gene
therapy would be condemned by the Jehovah Witness religion. Participants be-
longing to this religion need to fully understand the methodology of an experi-
ment to see if it is in violation of their religions rules. Knowing this information
will permit them to make a more adequate decision.
E-Zine Journal: Youth Scientists and the Ethics of Current Science 5
Given the importance that informed consent is for both the protection of hu-
man rights and the validity of research experiments, it is important and ethical
to try to amend the problems caused by the misunderstanding of information.
Four methods suggested are: 1) conducting a demographic analysis of the re-
search projects geographical location; 2) hiring professionals to translate all the
information related to the experiment; 3) taking extra time to fully explain the
informed consent form; and 4) administering small quizzes about the information
covered in the consent form.
6 Bio-Ethics Issue 1, Fall 2007
the material in more detail. For example, in the case of false expectations, physi-
cians can expect patients to be overconfident about therapy success rates. To
correct for this discrepancy, physicians can emphasize to participants the thera-
pys actual success rates. Lee et al. also suggest that extra time be taken to further
educate participants about aspects of the research project that they might not
fully understand. For example, in the case of potential conflicts of interests due
to religious creed, researchers can take the time to educate the participant about
these conflicts of interests. They can also address any misconceptions about the
research/medical project. For example, researchers can inform Jehovah Witness
participants that criminal behavior patterns are not passed on to the person
receiving blood transfusions.
5 Concluding Remarks
The informed consent process is a very important aspect of both research and
clinical experiments. Ideally, it is a guideline set up by many documents such as
the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report to
influence scientists to behave ethically at all times. It promotes the rights of a
participant as autonomous beings to ensure that they are treated with justice,
beneficence, and respect. For this to occur, a participant must fully understand
the nature of the experiment. In practice, however, this does not always oc-
cur. The process can be taken very lightly by both researchers and participants.
In order for the consent process to be valid, participants need to realize and
understand its importance. Neglecting its importance can lead to unethical be-
havior and the loss of participants rights. One of the major problems with the
informed consent process in practice is the occurrence of misunderstandings be-
tween the participants and the researchers. Such misunderstandings can occur
due to factors such as language barriers, conflicts with religious dogma, and false
expectations. These factors can affect the quality of participant-researcher in-
teraction. Thus, researchers should pay greater attention to this issue so that
participants can be better informed and have greater comprehension about the
8 Bio-Ethics Issue 1, Fall 2007
informed consent documents that they are required to sign. Furthermore, re-
searchers should take all the steps necessary to ensure that participants fully
understand what is being stated in the consent form. For example, researchers
can make demographic analysis to anticipate potential language barriers, they
can hire professionals to translate all required information, they can take ex-
tra time to explain confusing information in detail, and they can administer
small quizzes assessing the level of comprehension about the consent form. Im-
plementing such methods can prevent unintended behaviors that are unethical
by ensuring that participants have full autonomy over their decisions. It can also
ensure that the principles outlined by decrees such as The Belmont Report are
seriously acknowledged and respected.
References
1. Appelbaum, P.S., Roth, L.H., Lidz, C.W., Benson, P., & Winslade, W. (2002) False
hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. In Bul-
ger, R.E., Heitman, I., & Reiser, J. (Ed.), The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological
and Health Sciences (pp. 139- 147). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. Baker, D.W., Hayes, R., & Fortier, J.P. Interpreter use and satisfaction with inter-
personal aspects of care for Spanish-speaking patients. Med Care. 1998; 36:1461-
1470
3. Bulger, R.E. (2002). Research with Human Beings. In Bulger, R.E., Heitman, I., &
Reiser, J. (Ed.), The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences (pp.
117-125). New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Crane, J.A. Patient Comprehension of doctor-patient communication on discharge
from the emergency department. J Emergency Med. 1997; 15:1-7
5. Lee, S.J., Fairclough, D., Antin, J.H., & Weeks, J.C. Discrepancies between patient
and physician estimates for the success of stem cell transplantation. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 2001; 285: 1034-1038.
6. Pimentel Perez, A.G. Los testigos de Jehova y el consentimiento informado. Revista
de Medicina. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS). 2002; 40(6): 495-504.
7. Tocher, T.M., & Larson, E. Quality of diabetes care for non-English-speaking pa-
tients: A comparative study. West J Med. 1998; 168: 504-511. United States Bureau
of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the US 1990 Census. Washington, DC; 1993.