Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: Cautious pragmatism

American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 364-372

  De Vries, Raymond ^a   Ryan, Kerry A ^a   Stanczyk, Aimee ^a   Appelbaum, Paul S ^b   Damschroder, Laura ^c   Knopman, David S ^d   Kim, Scott Y H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c VA ANN ARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Deliberative democracy; Dementia; Surrogate consent

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMENTIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT SELECTION; PUBLIC OPINION;

ADVANCE DIRECTIVES; DEMENTIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PUBLIC OPINION; THIRD-PARTY CONSENT;

EID: 84880096247     PISSN: 10647481     EISSN: 15457214     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.010     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Kim SYH, Caine ED, Currier GW, et al: Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer's disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 712-717 (Pubitemid 32429837)
2. Okonkwo O, Griffith HR, Belue K, et al: Medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 2007; 69:1528-1535 (Pubitemid 47537860)
3. Orgogozo JM, Gilman S, Dartigues JF, et al: Subacute meningoencephalitis in a subset of patients with AD after Abeta42 immunization. Neurology 2003; 61:46-54 (Pubitemid 36818745)
4. Tuszynski MH, Thal L, Pay M, et al: A phase 1 clinical trial of nerve growth factor gene therapy for Alzheimer disease. Nat Med 2005; 11:551-555 (Pubitemid 40691288)
5. Kolata G: Doubt on tactic in Alzheimer's battle. The New York Times. August 18, 2010: A14
6. Saks ER, Dunn LB, Wimer J, et al: Proxy consent to research: the legal landscape. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2008; 8:37-92
7. Cahill M, Wichman A: Research involving persons with cognitive impairments: results of a survey of Alzheimer disease research centers in the United States. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2000; 14:20-27 (Pubitemid 30142728)
8. Karlawish JHT, Knopman D, Clark CM, et al: Informed consent for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigators. IRB 2002; 24:1-5
9. Gong MN, Winkel G, Rhodes R, et al: Surrogate consent for research involving adults with impaired decision making: survey of institutional review board practices. Crit Care Med 2010; 38: 2146-2154
10. Bravo G, Dubois MF, Wildeman SM, et al: Research with decisionally incapacitated older adults: practices of Canadian research ethics boards. IRB 2010; 32:1-8
11. Black BS, Rabins PV, Sugarman J, et al: Seeking assent and respecting dissent in dementia research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2010; 18:77-85
12. Wendler D, Martinez RA, Fairclough D, et al: Views of potential subjects toward proposed regulations for clinical research with adults unable to consent. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159:585-591 (Pubitemid 34274940)
13. Kim SYH, Kim HM, McCallum C, et al: What do people at risk for Alzheimer's disease think about surrogate consent for research? Neurology 2005; 65:1395-1401 (Pubitemid 41552768)
14. Karlawish J, Rubright J, Casarett D, et al: Older adults' attitudes toward enrollment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer's research. Am J Psychiatry 2009; 166:182-188
15. Kim SY, Kim HM, Langa KM, et al: Surrogate consent for dementia research: a national survey of older Americans. Neurology 2009; 72:149-155
16. Kim S, Wall I, Stanczyk A, et al: Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2009; 4:3-16
17. Fishkin JS: The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1997
18. Freeman S: Deliberative democracy: a sympathetic comment. Philos Public Aff 2000; 29:371-419
19. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, et al: Public participation in health care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy 2009; 91: 219-228
20. U.S. Congress: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Washington, DC, GPO, 2009
21. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues: New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies. Final Report, Washington, DC, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2010. Available at: http://www.bioethics.gov/. Accessed June 10 2011
22. Kim SYH, Kim HM, Knopman DS, et al: Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research. Neurology 2011; 77:2097-2104
23. De Vries R, Stanczyk AE, Ryan KA, et al: A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethics. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011; 6:3-17
24. Section C: Collecting and analyzing data, in Qualitative Methods in Health Research. Edited by Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, De Vries R. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2010, pp 287-555
25. De Vries R, Stanczyk A, Wall IF, et al: Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70:1896-1903
26. Kim SYH, Uhlmann RA, Appelbaum PS, et al: Deliberative assessment of surrogate consent in dementia research. Alzheimers Dement 2010; 6:342-350
27. Kim S, Karlawish J, Kim H, et al: Preservation of the capacity to appoint a proxy decision maker: implications for dementia research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011; 68:214-220