Skip to main content

Lack of informed consent for experiments on premature babies

Experimentation on premature babies has always presented ethical problems. Increasing numbers of babies are born prematurely and babies are surviving at younger gestational ages. Pushing the boundaries of intensive care often steps into the realm of the unknown. This creates problems of informed consent.

In an article on bmj.com, a senior doctor today calls for an  investigation of whether parents of premature babies were fully informed of the risks of a study on the health effects of varying oxygen levels.

Dr Sidney Wolfe, founder and senior adviser to the Health Research Group at Public Citizen, says it is surprising that the adequacy of consent forms for nearly identical studies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and other countries with similar regulation of human research, has apparently not yet been examined.

He argues that there may well be “serious problems” with such risk disclosure that must be addressed.

One such study, called SUPPORT, was funded by the US National Institutes of Health and took place at many universities across the US between 2005 and 2009. A total of 1,316 extremely premature infants were randomly maintained at either higher (91-95%) or lower (85-89%) ranges of oxygen saturation.

The main aim of the study was to see whether the infants were more likely to die or suffer eye damage and blindness at the different oxygen ranges. In the early days of the development of intensive care of very premature babies, many suffered blindness as a result of being given high levels of oxygen. The principal problem for premature babies is that the lungs are very poorly developed. Only from the development of ventilator techniques has it been possible to keep these babies alive.

Wolfe says that parents were not adequately informed about the risks or true nature and purpose of the research, but others have staunchly defended this lack of informed consent. Intensive care for very premature babies, particularly now those born around 23 weeks gestation, is inevitably 'experimental'. The choices are stark. Either they are not kept alive or it must be accepted that the process of doing so will involve procedures the risks of which are difficult to assess.

Nevertheless Dr Wolfe argues that information on risks and possible outcomes was missing from the consent forms, and that the forms “failed to distinguish the important differences between these clearly experimental procedures for managing the oxygen therapy and the usual individualized standard of care the babies would have received had they not been enrolled in the study.” I suspect had they not been enrolled in 'the study' it would have been unlikely they would have survived, or at least it would have been impossible for the neonatologists to have given sufficient information to the parents for informed consent in intensive care. 

But there is one key concern Dr Wolfe highlights that should be addressed. He points out that  “many of the consent forms falsely stated that because all of the treatments proposed in this study are ‘standard of care’ there would be no expected increase in risk to the infants.” This is disingenuous at best. The truth must surely be that all procedures are expected to have risks. Keeping babies alive at all costs is not in itself ethical.

Others, however, have defended the lack of appropriate informed consent in neonatal trials.  In a recent BMJ editorial, eminent neonatologist Neena Modi implicitly argued that withholding some risk information would “reduce the burden of decision making at difficult and stressful times” and “would also reduce the risk of ‘injurious misconception,’ where participation is inappropriately rejected because of an exaggerated and disproportionate perception of risk.”

But Wolfe suggests that the underlying principle behind these arguments “is that it is necessary, via inadequately informed consent, to blur the line between research and standard of care to facilitate more consent and participation.”

This, he concludes, “appears to be exactly what occurred when consent was obtained for the SUPPORT study subjects.”

Indeed I would argue that that is precisely what has led to the development of modern neonatal intensive care procedures. For the very premature babies it is largely experimental. But more babies are now surviving as a result of these techniques and the EPICURE study has tracked reasonably good outcomes through childhood. The difficulty is in being able to predict which babies are likely to be those with a good outcome.

These difficulties in predictive outcome and the risks of treatment should be shared with parents. The key question is not whether this should be so but how it should or can be done so as to enable parents  to share in the decision making process.  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba