News & Events
In Jamaica, a push to market island getaways — with a side of surgery. Leigh Turner, PhD, Center for Bioethics, College of Pharmacy, School of Public Health is quoted. STAT NewsRead more...
Blood from human umbilical cords can rejuvenate old mouse brains. Leigh Turner, PhD, Center for Bioethics, College of Pharmacy, School of Public Health is quoted. The Atlantic.Read more...
Trump is now in charge of making Obamacare work. What could go wrong? Sarah Gollust, PhD and Pinar Karaca-Mandic, PhD, School of Public Health. Vox.
Is the fight to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act dead? Sarah Gollust, PhD, School of Public Health. PolitiFact.Read more...
The Center for Bioethics is pleased to announce that the University of Costa Rica is translating "Doctors who Torture: The Pursuit of Justice" into Spanish. The book is authored by Professor and Maas Family Endowed Chair in Bioethics, Steven Miles, MD.
2-520 Moos Tower, U of M East Bank Campus
Is There a Legal Privilege to Waive Consent for Research?
Presented by: Jon Merz, MBA, JD, PhD
Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Waivers of informed consent for research participation are permitted under the Common Rule as well as the Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) for emergency research rule. We examine waivers as embodiments of legal privilege, which permit actors to violate legal norms in furtherance of greater social goods. The emergency privilege, which allows a caregiver to provide emergency medical care to an incompetent victim of an accident, is the clearest example. But fundamental to the privilege to acting without consent is the presumption that reasonable persons in the patients' position would agree, if capable, and that no evidence exists that the particular patient would not agree. An assessment of what is known about participation and refusal rates in research show that the presumption with respect to standard care is not applicable to research. This suggests that, while researchers may assert the social utility of their studies are high enough to justify waivers,there is reason to suspect that many who would be enrolled under a waiver of consent would not want to be enrolled.Our analysis suggests that waivers should be rare, IRBs and researchers must explicitly address study acceptability, and it should be incumbent upon researchers to establish by clear, sound evidence that proposed studies would be acceptable in the community at large and the target population.
Seminars are free and open to the public.