Hennepin医疗保健强迫氯胺酮研究,兴奋性谵妄和警察暴力。

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Carl Elliott, Lauren Wilson
{"title":"Hennepin医疗保健强迫氯胺酮研究,兴奋性谵妄和警察暴力。","authors":"Carl Elliott,&nbsp;Lauren Wilson","doi":"10.1002/hast.4985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>In the summer of 2018, the</i> Minneapolis Star Tribune <i>reported clinical trials at Hennepin County Medical Center in which emergency medical personnel were injecting agitated individuals with ketamine, often at the urging of police. These individuals were enrolled in the trials without their knowledge or consent. In one of the studies, nearly 40 percent of subjects given ketamine experienced breathing issues so serious that they had to be intubated. Many subjects were members of vulnerable, marginalized groups. In this paper, we describe the ways in which the Hennepin Healthcare ketamine studies violated federal research guidelines. We consider the troubling relationship between Hennepin Healthcare and law enforcement, as well as the concept of</i> excited delirium. <i>Finally, we consider some alternative ways of conceptualizing clinical trials in which the intervention may not benefit subjects. We compare the ketamine trials to clinical trials of chemical restraints in nursing homes and other health care institutions and also to studies of “nonlethal” weapons</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"55 5","pages":"29-40"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4985","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Hennepin Healthcare Forced Ketamine Studies, Excited Delirium, and Police Violence\",\"authors\":\"Carl Elliott,&nbsp;Lauren Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hast.4985\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><i>In the summer of 2018, the</i> Minneapolis Star Tribune <i>reported clinical trials at Hennepin County Medical Center in which emergency medical personnel were injecting agitated individuals with ketamine, often at the urging of police. These individuals were enrolled in the trials without their knowledge or consent. In one of the studies, nearly 40 percent of subjects given ketamine experienced breathing issues so serious that they had to be intubated. Many subjects were members of vulnerable, marginalized groups. In this paper, we describe the ways in which the Hennepin Healthcare ketamine studies violated federal research guidelines. We consider the troubling relationship between Hennepin Healthcare and law enforcement, as well as the concept of</i> excited delirium. <i>Finally, we consider some alternative ways of conceptualizing clinical trials in which the intervention may not benefit subjects. We compare the ketamine trials to clinical trials of chemical restraints in nursing homes and other health care institutions and also to studies of “nonlethal” weapons</i>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"volume\":\"55 5\",\"pages\":\"29-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4985\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4985\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4985","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2018年夏天,《明尼阿波利斯明星论坛报》(Minneapolis Star Tribune)报道了亨内平县医疗中心(Hennepin County Medical Center)的临床试验,在试验中,急救医务人员经常在警方的敦促下,给情绪激动的人注射氯胺酮。这些人在不知情或不同意的情况下参加了试验。在其中一项研究中,近40%服用氯胺酮的受试者出现了严重的呼吸问题,以至于不得不插管。许多受试者是弱势、边缘群体的成员。在本文中,我们描述了Hennepin医疗氯胺酮研究违反联邦研究指南的方式。我们考虑Hennepin医疗保健和执法部门之间令人不安的关系,以及兴奋性谵妄的概念。最后,我们考虑了一些概念化临床试验的替代方法,其中干预可能不会使受试者受益。我们将氯胺酮试验与疗养院和其他医疗机构的化学约束的临床试验以及“非致命”武器的研究进行了比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Hennepin Healthcare Forced Ketamine Studies, Excited Delirium, and Police Violence

The Hennepin Healthcare Forced Ketamine Studies, Excited Delirium, and Police Violence

In the summer of 2018, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported clinical trials at Hennepin County Medical Center in which emergency medical personnel were injecting agitated individuals with ketamine, often at the urging of police. These individuals were enrolled in the trials without their knowledge or consent. In one of the studies, nearly 40 percent of subjects given ketamine experienced breathing issues so serious that they had to be intubated. Many subjects were members of vulnerable, marginalized groups. In this paper, we describe the ways in which the Hennepin Healthcare ketamine studies violated federal research guidelines. We consider the troubling relationship between Hennepin Healthcare and law enforcement, as well as the concept of excited delirium. Finally, we consider some alternative ways of conceptualizing clinical trials in which the intervention may not benefit subjects. We compare the ketamine trials to clinical trials of chemical restraints in nursing homes and other health care institutions and also to studies of “nonlethal” weapons.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
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