Informed consent in the psychosis prodrome: ethical, procedural and cultural considerations

Reconsidering research exclusion for serious mental illness: Ethical principles, current status, and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Historically, individuals managing serious mental illness (SMI) have often been excluded from research, typically because of concern that these individuals may not be able to understand and provide truly informed consent. As treatment has improved, the assumption that individuals managing SMI may not be capable of consent needs to be re-examined. Systematic exclusion from research may limit empirically tested treatments available for people managing SMI, and may contribute to the health care disparities seen in this population.

OBJECTIVES

This article examines this issue by documenting current rates of research exclusion for high disease burden conditions, based on empirical review of studies in ClinicalTrials.gov.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Current rates of exclusion from studies for psychiatric conditions were assessed through systematic review of relevant clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov.

SUBJECTS

Subjects in this inquiry are either articles accessed in the literature reviews, or descriptions of studies in public data on ClinicalTrials.gov.

MEASURES

The primary measure was a previously published coding system to document the extent and types of research exclusion related to psychiatric status.

RESULTS

Among studies of interventions for substance use disorders and chronic pain, individuals managing SMI were more likely to be excluded than those with other psychiatric disorders at statistically significant levels. This was not the case among studies of interventions for ischemic heart disease. In studies of substance use disorders, 9% explicitly excluded SMI and 83% could exclude people with SMI based on broader exclusion criteria. In studies of chronic pain these two categories of exclusion were 16% and 55%, and in studies of ischemic heart disease, these two categories of exclusion were 1% and 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence indicates that it is ethically and scientifically more appropriate to exclude based on capacity to consent than membership in the group of individuals managing SMI. The discussion outlines techniques researchers can use for more equitable and generalizable sampling.

Psychosis, vulnerability, and the moral significance of biomedical innovation in psychiatry. Why ethicists should join efforts

The study of the neuroscience and genomics of mental illness are increasingly intertwined. This is mostly due to the translation of medical technologies into psychiatry and to technological convergence. This article focuses on psychosis. I argue that the convergence of neuroscience and genomics in the context of psychosis is morally problematic, and that ethics scholarship should go beyond the identification of a number of ethical, legal, and social issues. My argument is composed of two strands. First, I argue that we should respond to technological convergence by developing an integrated, patient-centred approach focused on the assessment of individual vulnerabilities. Responding to technological convergence requires that we (i) integrate insights from several areas of ethics, (ii) translate bioethical principles into the mental health context, and (iii) proactively try to anticipate future ethical concerns. Second, I argue that a nuanced understanding of the concept of vulnerability might help us to accomplish this task. I borrow Florencia Luna's notion of 'layers of vulnerability' to show how potential harms or wrongs to individuals who experience psychosis can be conceptualised as stemming from different sources, or layers, of vulnerability. I argue that a layered notion of vulnerability might serve as a common ground to achieve the ethical integration needed to ensure that biomedical innovation can truly benefit, and not harm, individuals who suffer from psychosis.

European Psychiatric Association policy paper on ethical aspects in communication with patients and their families

BACKGROUND

Establishing a valid communication is not only a basic clinical need to be met but also a relevant ethical commitment.

METHODS

On the basis of the relevant literature, ethical issues arising from specific, important situations in clinical practice were identified.

RESULTS

The main ethical problems regarding communication about the disorder, both in general and in relation to prodromal stages, were described and discussed together with those regarding communication about voluntary and involuntary treatments, "dual roles" enacted in clinical practice, genetic counseling, and end-of-life conditions; on the basis of what emerged, ethically driven indications and suggestions were provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Several situations put the psychiatrist in front of relevant dilemmas and doubts which are no easy to face with; an ethically driven approach based upon the principle of the best interest of patients may support clinicians in their decisions.

The benefit of foresight? An ethical evaluation of predictive testing for psychosis in clinical practice

Risk prediction for psychosis has advanced to the stage at which it could feasibly become a clinical reality. Neuroimaging biomarkers play a central role in many risk prediction models. Using such models to predict the likelihood of transition to psychosis in individuals known to be at high risk has the potential to meaningfully improve outcomes, principally through facilitating early intervention. However, this compelling benefit must be evaluated in light of the broader ethical ramifications of this prospective development in clinical practice. This paper advances ethical discussion in the field in two ways: firstly, through in-depth consideration of the distinctive implications of the clinical application of predictive tools; and, secondly, by evaluating the manner in which newer predictive models incorporating neuroimaging alter the ethical landscape. We outline the current state of the science of predictive testing for psychosis, with a particular focus on emerging neuroimaging biomarkers. We then proceed to ethical analysis employing the four principles of biomedical ethics as a conceptual framework. We conclude with a call for scientific advancement to proceed in tandem with ethical consideration, informed by empirical study of the views of high risk individuals and their families. This collaborative approach will help ensure that predictive testing progresses in an ethically acceptable manner that minimizes potential adverse effects and maximizes meaningful benefits for those at high risk of psychosis.