Advance directives in dementia research: Promoting autonomy and protecting subjects

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 1-6

  Dresser, Rebecca ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COMPREHENSION; CUSTODY; DEMENTIA; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LIVING WILL; MENTAL CAPACITY; NATIONAL BIOETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; NATIONAL BIOETHICS ADVISORY COMMISSION;

ADVANCE DIRECTIVES; ADVISORY COMMITTEES; AGED; COMPREHENSION; DEMENTIA; DISCLOSURE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; GUIDELINES; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL COMPETENCY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROXY; STATE GOVERNMENT; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 0035241527     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3563979     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects; notices and rules. Federal Register 1991; 56: 18001-31.
2. Hoffman DE, Schwartz J. Proxy consent to participation of the decisionally impaired in medical research - Maryland's policy initiative. Journal of Health Care Law & Policy 1998; 1: 123-53.
3. Keyserlingk EW, Glass KC, Kogan S, Gauthier S. Proposed guidelines for the participation of persons with dementia as research subjects. Perspectives in Biology & Medicine 1995; 38: 319-61.
4. High DM, Whitehouse PJ, Post SG, Berg L. Guidelines for addressing ethical and legal issues in Alzheimer disease research: A position paper. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 1994; 8(suppl 4): 66-74.
5. Brodaty H, Dresser R, Eisner M, et al. Guidelines for research involving human subjects with dementia. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 1999; 13: 71-9.
6. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisiomnaking Capacity. Vol. 1: Report and Recommendations. Rockville, Md.: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1998.
7. Final Report of the Attorney General's Working Group on Research Involving Decisionally Incapacitated Subjects. Baltimore, Md.: Office of the Maryland Attorney General, 1998.
8. New York State Advisory Work Group on Human Subject Research Involving the Protected Classes. Recommendations on the Oversight of Human Subject Research Involving the Protected Classes. Albany, N.Y.: State of New York Department of Health, 1998.
9. The proposals build on earlier models for research advance directives, including a National Institutes of Health Clinical Center policy governing intramural research. This policy and other early versions of research directives are discussed in Dresser R. Research involving persons with mental disabilities: A review of policy issues and proposals. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisiomnaking Capacity. Vol. 2: Commissioned Papers. Rockville, Md: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1999: 5-28.
10. See note 1, Federal policy, 1991: 28013-4.
11. The proposals contemplate categories of research similar to those in the existing regulations governing federally funded research involving children, at 45 CFR 46.405, 406.
12. Dresser R. Mentally disabled research subjects: The enduring policy issues. JAMA 1996; 276: 67-72.
13. See note 1, Federal policy, 1991: 28016-7.
14. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report 1987; 17(2): 20-4.
15. See note 3, Keyserlingk et al. 1995: 347.
16. Silberfeld M, Nash C, Singer PA. Capacity to complete an advance directive. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993; 41:1141-3.
17. Fazel S, Hope T, Jacoby R. Assessment of competence to complete advance directives: Validation of a patient centred approach. British Medical Journal 1999; 318: 493-7.
18. Savulescu J. Rational desires and the limitation of life-sustaining treatment. Bioethics 1994; 8: 191-222.
19. Pope TM. The maladaptation of Miranda to advance directives: A critique of the implementation of the Patient Self-Determination Act. Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine 1999; 9: 139-202.
20. See note 3, Keyserlingk et al. 1995: 351.
21. Hibbard JH, Slovic P, Jewett JJ. Informing consumer decisions in health care: Implications from decision-making research. Milbank Quarterly 1997; 75: 395-406.
22. Kass NE, Sugarman J Faden R, Schoch-Apana M. Trust: The fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Center Report 1996; 26(5): 25-9.
23. Cook-Deegan RM. Review of Alzheimer's disease research: Ethical and legal issues. NEJM 1992; 327: 61-2.
24. Dresser R. Dworkin on dementia: Elegant theory, questionable policy. Hastings Center Report 1995; 25(6): 32-8.
25. Wolf SM, Boyle P, Callahan D, et al. Sources of concern about the Patient Self-Determination Act. NEJM 1991; 325: 1666-71.
26. World Medical Association: Declaration of Helsinki. http://www.wma.net /e/policy/17-c_e.html.