Show simple item record

Research Conditions That Qualify for Emergency Exception from Informed Consent

dc.contributor.authorWatters, Drewen_US
dc.contributor.authorSayre, Michael R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSilbergleit, Roberten_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T21:23:02Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T21:23:02Z
dc.date.issued2005-11en_US
dc.identifier.citationWatters, Drew; Sayre, Michael R.; Silbergleit, Robert (2005). "Research Conditions That Qualify for Emergency Exception from Informed Consent." Academic Emergency Medicine 12(11): 1040-1044. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74446>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1069-6563en_US
dc.identifier.issn1553-2712en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74446
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16264071&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstract: Medical research involving critically ill and injured subjects unable to provide informed consent can only be conducted under federal regulations that attempt to balance the need to develop lifesaving treatments with protection of research subjects' rights. Regulators, researchers, and medical ethicists have all struggled to define the conditions under which an emergency exception from informed consent is appropriate. Although research has been successfully conducted under the current regulations, confusion remains regarding the meaning of the regulations, the applicable conditions, and the best ways to balance the needs of future patients and the rights of research subjects. In May 2005, at the Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference “Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research,” a breakout session was held on the research conditions that qualify for the emergency exception from informed consent process. Several recommendations emerged: 1) The definition of “life-threatening condition” should be broadly interpreted to include serious disability as well as death. 2) Existing therapies should be considered “unsatisfactory,” even if partially effective, when serious risk of morbidity or mortality remains even with the best available treatment or when the adverse effects of the best available treatment are serious. 3) Research with the emergency exception should be performed only if sufficient evidence exists that the proposed intervention has a reasonable chance of benefit. 4) More evaluation is needed to determine the degree to which the current rules impede research. 5) Application of the current regulatory framework for abbreviated or waived consent in emergency research should be encouraged. 6) Further study should also address variability among institutional review boards, the goals of community involvement, and how best to engage and educate the public in research efforts using emergency exception from informed consent.en_US
dc.format.extent70346 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/octet-stream
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights© 2005 Society for Academic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.subject.otherExceptionen_US
dc.subject.otherWaiveren_US
dc.subject.otherInformeden_US
dc.subject.otherConsenten_US
dc.subject.otherResearchen_US
dc.subject.otherEthicsen_US
dc.titleResearch Conditions That Qualify for Emergency Exception from Informed Consenten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, OHen_US
dc.identifier.pmid16264071en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74446/1/j.aem.2005.06.022.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1197/j.aem.2005.06.022en_US
dc.identifier.sourceAcademic Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcRae AD, Weijer C. Lessons from everyday lives: a moral justification for acute care research. Crit Care Med. 2002; 30: 1146 – 51.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBiros MH. Research without consent: current status. Ann Emerg Med. 2003; 452: 550 – 64.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreference3. Protection of human subjects: informed consent and waiver of consent requirements in certain emergency research: final rules. (codified at 21 CFR §50, et al., 45 CFR §46). Fed Reg. 1996; 61 ( 192 ): 51500 – 33.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShah AN, Sugarman J. Protecting research subjects under the waiver of informed consent for emergency research: experiences with efforts to inform the community. Ann Emerg Med. 2003; 41: 72 – 8.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNorthfield Laboratories, Evanston, IL. PolyHeme® pivotal phase III trial. Available at: http://www.northfieldlabs.com/amb_trial_des.html. Accessed Jun 28, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMcClure KB, DeIorio ND, Gunnels MD, Ochsner M, Biros MH, Schmidt TA. Waiver of consent in research: community consultation and notification [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med. 2002; 9: 440 – 1.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.