Consent for critical care research after death from COVID-19: Arguments for a waiver.

IF 1.2
K Moodley, B W Allwood, T M Rossouw
{"title":"Consent for critical care research after death from COVID-19: Arguments for a waiver.","authors":"K Moodley,&nbsp;B W Allwood,&nbsp;T M Rossouw","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pandemics challenge clinicians and scientists in many ways, especially when the virus is novel and disease expression becomes variable or unpredictable. Under such circumstances, research becomes critical to inform clinical care and protect future patients. Given that severely ill patients admitted to intensive care units are at high risk of mortality, establishing the cause of death at a histopathological level could prove invaluable in contributing to the understanding of COVID-19. Postmortem examination including autopsies would be optimal. However, in the context of high contagion and limited personal protective equipment, full autopsies are not being conducted in South Africa (SA). A compromise would require tissue biopsies and samples to be taken immediately after death to obtain diagnostic information, which could potentially guide care of future patients, or generate hypotheses for finding needed solutions. In the absence of an advance written directive (including a will or medical record) providing consent for postmortem research, proxy consent is the next best option. However, obtaining consent from distraught family members, under circumstances of legally mandated lockdown when strict infection control measures limit visitors in hospitals, is challenging. Their extreme vulnerability and emotional distress make full understanding of the rationale and consent process difficult either before or upon death of a family member. While it is morally distressing to convey a message of death telephonically, it is inhumane to request consent for urgent research in the same conversation. Careful balancing of the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence and justice becomes an ethical imperative. Under such circumstances, a waiver of consent, preferably followed by deferred proxy consent, granted by a research ethics committee in keeping with national ethics guidance and legislation, would fulfil the basic premise of care and research: first do no harm. This article examines the SA research ethics framework, guidance and legislation to justify support for a waiver of consent followed by deferred proxy consent, when possible, in urgent research after death to inform current and future care to contain the pandemic in the public interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":520778,"journal":{"name":"South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde","volume":" ","pages":"629-634"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pandemics challenge clinicians and scientists in many ways, especially when the virus is novel and disease expression becomes variable or unpredictable. Under such circumstances, research becomes critical to inform clinical care and protect future patients. Given that severely ill patients admitted to intensive care units are at high risk of mortality, establishing the cause of death at a histopathological level could prove invaluable in contributing to the understanding of COVID-19. Postmortem examination including autopsies would be optimal. However, in the context of high contagion and limited personal protective equipment, full autopsies are not being conducted in South Africa (SA). A compromise would require tissue biopsies and samples to be taken immediately after death to obtain diagnostic information, which could potentially guide care of future patients, or generate hypotheses for finding needed solutions. In the absence of an advance written directive (including a will or medical record) providing consent for postmortem research, proxy consent is the next best option. However, obtaining consent from distraught family members, under circumstances of legally mandated lockdown when strict infection control measures limit visitors in hospitals, is challenging. Their extreme vulnerability and emotional distress make full understanding of the rationale and consent process difficult either before or upon death of a family member. While it is morally distressing to convey a message of death telephonically, it is inhumane to request consent for urgent research in the same conversation. Careful balancing of the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence and justice becomes an ethical imperative. Under such circumstances, a waiver of consent, preferably followed by deferred proxy consent, granted by a research ethics committee in keeping with national ethics guidance and legislation, would fulfil the basic premise of care and research: first do no harm. This article examines the SA research ethics framework, guidance and legislation to justify support for a waiver of consent followed by deferred proxy consent, when possible, in urgent research after death to inform current and future care to contain the pandemic in the public interest.

COVID-19死亡后重症监护研究的同意:放弃的理由。
大流行在许多方面给临床医生和科学家带来挑战,特别是当病毒是新型的,疾病表达变得可变或不可预测时。在这种情况下,研究对于告知临床护理和保护未来的患者至关重要。鉴于入住重症监护病房的重症患者死亡风险很高,在组织病理学水平上确定死亡原因对于了解COVID-19可能是非常宝贵的。包括尸体解剖在内的死后检查是最好的。然而,在高传染性和个人防护装备有限的情况下,南非尚未进行全面尸检。一种折衷方案是,在病人死后立即进行组织活检和样本采集,以获得诊断信息,这可能会指导未来病人的护理,或者为找到所需的解决方案提出假设。在没有事先书面指示(包括遗嘱或医疗记录)同意进行死后研究的情况下,代理同意是次佳选择。然而,在严格的感染控制措施限制医院访客的法律强制封锁的情况下,获得心烦意乱的家庭成员的同意是具有挑战性的。他们的极度脆弱和情绪痛苦使得在家庭成员死亡之前或死亡之后都难以充分理解理由和同意程序。虽然通过电话传达死亡信息在道德上令人痛心,但在同一谈话中要求同意进行紧急研究是不人道的。谨慎地平衡自治原则、非恶意原则和正义原则成为一种道德要求。在这种情况下,由研究伦理委员会根据国家伦理指导和立法授予的放弃同意,最好是随后延期代理同意,将满足护理和研究的基本前提:首先不造成伤害。本文审查了SA的研究伦理框架、指导和立法,以证明在可能的情况下,在死后的紧急研究中放弃同意,然后推迟代理同意,以便为当前和未来的护理提供信息,以符合公共利益遏制流行病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信