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

Palm Oil production killing the planet

Bad trade and bad products are killing our planet. We have said this before on The Thin End. There is no better example than that of palm oil. It is used ubiquitously in so many products, and its production is a major factor destroying rainforests and threatening precious species.

Demand for palm oil is 'skyrocketing worldwide'. It is used in packaging and in so much of our snack foods, cookies, crackers, chocolate products, instant noodles, cereals, and doughnuts, and the list goes on.
Bad for the planet So, why is this so bad for the planet?

The oil is extracted from the fruit of the oil palms native to Africa. It is now grown primarily in Indonesia and Malaysia, but is also expanding across Central and West Africa and Latin America.

Palm oil production is now one of the world's leading causes of rainforest destruction, and this is impacting adversely some of the world's most culturally and biologically diverse ecosystems. Irreplaceable wildlife species like t…

Time to ban organophosphate pesticides?

How would you react if your neighbour told you he was going to spray his garden with a neurotoxin used in WW2? "Oh don't worry!" he assures you, "it's only a low dose!"
"A neurotoxin?" you ask incredulously "Are you crazy?"
"It's very effective!" he asserts.
"How does it work?" you ask.
"It stops the pests' brains working" he asserts with a smile.  "Everyone uses it."
"But..."

Campaigners in the USA hope that with Scott Pruitt’s resignation, and with a new administrator Andrew Wheeler at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this presents another chance to apply pressure and achieve a national ban in the United States on the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos once and for all.



Organophosphate insecticides, such as diazinon, chlorpyrifos, disulfoton, azinphos-methyl, and fonofos, have been used widely in agriculture and in household applications as pesticides si…

Dame Emma Thompson leads charge against rainforest destruction

Dame Emma Thompson, backed by a host of other famous names, has taken aim at big brands including Unilever, Nestle and Mondelez today, as Greenpeace releases a powerful new 90-second animation that highlights how orangutans are being pushed to the brink of extinction because of deforestation for palm oil.



Launched globally today, just ahead of International Orangutan Day (on August 19), the film, voiced by Emma Thompson, will also be shown across UK cinemas with thousands of screenings throughout August and September. It has been made by creative agency Mother (directed by award-winning Salon Alpin) and produced by Oscar-winning Passion Animation Studios.

Celebrities taking to social media to share it include Stephen Fry, Bryan Adams, Jodie Kidd, Alesha Dixon, Andy Serkis, Geri Horner (née Halliwell), Gregg Wallace and Sharon Osbourne.

The film tells the story of baby Rang-tan as she causes mischief in a little girl’s bedroom. Just as the girl is about to banish her, she asks Rang-tan…