{"title":"研究中放弃知情同意的历史与政策演变。","authors":"Austin Connor Kassels, Jon F Merz","doi":"10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We examine the evolution of policies permitting exceptions to or waivers of informed consent for research in the United States. This review reveals that (1) exceptions to the duty to secure informed consent were originally quite narrow; (2) there were two alternative approaches to allowing research on human subjects without their prospective consent: (i) exceptions in which individual capacity to consent is to be assessed and consent tailored to each person's abilities and (ii) waivers of the general requirement for a population of potential subjects, where securing prospective consent would \"destroy or invalidate\" critically important research; (3) waivers only appeared in the final rulemakings for research regulations issued by the National Institute of Education in 1974 and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1981, limiting the opportunity for the public to weigh in on the scope and use of waivers; and (4) rules adopted since 1981 have almost uniformly added extra requirements to justify waivers. Examples drawn from recent research show expansion of the use of waivers far beyond the bounds originally envisioned. Greater transparency about the use of waivers is needed for the public to weigh in on the standards for foregoing informed consent in human research.</p>","PeriodicalId":44014,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The History and Policy Evolution of Waivers of Informed Consent in Research.\",\"authors\":\"Austin Connor Kassels, Jon F Merz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We examine the evolution of policies permitting exceptions to or waivers of informed consent for research in the United States. This review reveals that (1) exceptions to the duty to secure informed consent were originally quite narrow; (2) there were two alternative approaches to allowing research on human subjects without their prospective consent: (i) exceptions in which individual capacity to consent is to be assessed and consent tailored to each person's abilities and (ii) waivers of the general requirement for a population of potential subjects, where securing prospective consent would \\\"destroy or invalidate\\\" critically important research; (3) waivers only appeared in the final rulemakings for research regulations issued by the National Institute of Education in 1974 and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1981, limiting the opportunity for the public to weigh in on the scope and use of waivers; and (4) rules adopted since 1981 have almost uniformly added extra requirements to justify waivers. Examples drawn from recent research show expansion of the use of waivers far beyond the bounds originally envisioned. Greater transparency about the use of waivers is needed for the public to weigh in on the standards for foregoing informed consent in human research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The History and Policy Evolution of Waivers of Informed Consent in Research.
We examine the evolution of policies permitting exceptions to or waivers of informed consent for research in the United States. This review reveals that (1) exceptions to the duty to secure informed consent were originally quite narrow; (2) there were two alternative approaches to allowing research on human subjects without their prospective consent: (i) exceptions in which individual capacity to consent is to be assessed and consent tailored to each person's abilities and (ii) waivers of the general requirement for a population of potential subjects, where securing prospective consent would "destroy or invalidate" critically important research; (3) waivers only appeared in the final rulemakings for research regulations issued by the National Institute of Education in 1974 and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1981, limiting the opportunity for the public to weigh in on the scope and use of waivers; and (4) rules adopted since 1981 have almost uniformly added extra requirements to justify waivers. Examples drawn from recent research show expansion of the use of waivers far beyond the bounds originally envisioned. Greater transparency about the use of waivers is needed for the public to weigh in on the standards for foregoing informed consent in human research.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Legal Medicine is the official quarterly publication of the American College of Legal Medicine (ACLM). Incorporated in 1960, the ACLM has among its objectives the fostering and encouragement of research and study in the field of legal medicine. The Journal of Legal Medicine is internationally circulated and includes articles and commentaries on topics of interest in legal medicine, health law and policy, professional liability, hospital law, food and drug law, medical legal research and education, the history of legal medicine, and a broad range of other related topics. Book review essays, featuring leading contributions to the field, are included in each issue.