Essentials of Informed Consent to Psychedelic Medicine

Importance

Interest in administering psychedelic agents as mental health treatment is growing rapidly. As drugmakers invest in developing psychedelic medicines for several psychiatric indications, lawmakers are enacting legal reforms to speed access globally, and health agencies are preparing to approve these treatments. Meanwhile, US states, such as Oregon and Colorado, are making psychedelics available for supervised use outside the conventional health care system.

Observations

Despite legal change and potentially imminent regulatory approval in some countries, standards for integrating psychedelics into health care have lagged, including norms for designing and implementing informed consent processes. Informed consent is complicated by the unique features of psychedelics and their means of administration. Because no governments have approved any classic psychedelics for general medical or psychiatric use, only clinical researchers have obtained informed consent from trial participants. Accordingly, there is an unmet need for informed consent processes tailored to the challenges of administering psychedelics in nonresearch settings.

Conclusions and Relevance

Analysis of the challenges of designing and implementing psychedelic informed consent practices revealed 7 essential components, including the possibility of short- and long-term perceptual disturbances, potential personality changes and altered metaphysical beliefs, the limited role of reassuring physical touch, the potential for patient abuse or coercion, the role and risks of data collection, relevant practitioner disclosures, and interactive patient education and comprehension assessment. Because publicly available informed consent documents for psychedelic clinical trials often overlook or underemphasize these essential elements, sample language and procedures to fill the gap are proposed.

Advancing disability-inclusive climate research and action, climate justice, and climate-resilient development

Globally, more than 1 billion people with disabilities are disproportionately and differentially at risk from the climate crisis. Yet there is a notable absence of climate policy, programming, and research at the intersection of disability and climate change. Advancing climate justice urgently requires accelerated disability-inclusive climate action. We present pivotal research recommendations and guidance to advance disability-inclusive climate research and responses identified by a global interdisciplinary group of experts in disability, climate change, sustainable development, public health, environmental justice, humanitarianism, gender, Indigeneity, mental health, law, and planetary health. Climate-resilient development is a framework for enabling universal sustainable development. Advancing inclusive climate-resilient development requires a disability human rights approach that deepens understanding of how societal choices and actions-characterised by meaningful participation, inclusion, knowledge diversity in decision making, and co-design by and with people with disabilities and their representative organisations-build collective climate resilience benefiting disability communities and society at large while advancing planetary health.

Whose Responsibility Is It to Define Exceptions in Abortion Bans?

This Viewpoint evaluates Texas’ proposals to define the scope of the life exception for the state’s abortion ban and argues that these approaches do not allow physicians to follow the national standards of care, avoid criminal liability, or have sufficient notice of what the law permits.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

Using digital technologies to diagnose in the home: recommendations from a Delphi panel

Rapid advances in digital technology have expanded the availability of diagnostic tools beyond traditional medical settings. Previously confined to clinical environments, these many diagnostic capabilities are now accessible outside the clinic. This study utilized the Delphi method, a consensus-building approach, to develop recommendations for the development and deployment of these innovative technologies. The study findings present the 29 consensus-based recommendations generated through the Delphi process, providing valuable insights and guidance for stakeholders involved in the implementation and utilization of these novel diagnostic solutions. These recommendations serve as a roadmap for navigating the complexities of integrating digital diagnostics into healthcare practice outside traditional settings like hospitals and clinics.

Increasing Telehealth Access Through Licensure Exceptions

This Viewpoint explains how exceptions can be used to connect patients via telehealth with a physician in another state, why this is a more practical and effective strategy, and what needs to happen for this to be a feasible solution.

The Council of Europe's AI Convention (2023-2024): Promises and pitfalls for health protection

The Council of Europe, Europe's most important human rights organization, is developing a legally binding instrument for the development, design, and application of AI systems. This "Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law" (AI Convention) aims to protect human rights against the harms of AI. The AI Convention may become the first legally-binding international treaty on AI. In this article, we highlight the implications of the proposed AI Convention for the health and human rights protection of patients. We praise the following characteristics [1]. Global regulation for technology that easily crosses jurisdictions [2]. The human rights-based approach with human rights assessment [3]. The actor-neutral, full-lifecycle approach [4]. The creation of enforceable rights through the European Human Rights Court. We signal the following challenges [1]. The sector-neutral approach [2]. The lack of reflection on new human rights [3]. Definitional issues, and [4] The process of global negotiations. We conclude that it is important for the Council of Europe not to compromise on the wide scope of application and the rights-based character of the proposed AI Convention.

Providing Responsible Health Care for Out-of-State Patients

This Viewpoint discusses why the legality of calling patients located in another state has suddenly been called into question.

Pulse Oximeters and Violation of Federal Antidiscrimination Law

This Viewpoint discusses how some pulse oximeters can provide incorrect oxygen saturation data for dark-skinned patients compared with light-skinned patients, describes the reasons that biased oximeters remained in use, and highlights why a rule recently proposed by the US Department of Health and Human Services may bring about needed change in the use of pulse oximetry for patients with dark skin.

Prevention of Bias and Discrimination in Clinical Practice Algorithms

This Viewpoint discusses a proposed DHHS rule to address discrimination in clinical algorithms and the need for additional considerations to ensure the burden of liability for biased algorithms is not disproportionately placed on health care professionals.

Re-admission after early discharge from involuntary hospitalization of psychiatric patients

Background

State psychiatrics in Public Health Departments in Israel can involuntary hospitalize patients (IHP) in psychotic status. IHP who are unsatisfied with the involuntary hospitalization can appeal to a Psychiatric Committee (PC) in the institution to ask to shorten their hospitalization. The PC can decide to discharge the patient to ambulatory treatment. This cohort study aimed to assess re-admission of IHP among patients who shortened their involuntary hospitalization in Tel-Aviv.

Methods

IHP whose involuntary hospitalization was shortened by PC (research arm) were compared to IHP patients who completed the entire hospitalization length, as was initially recommended by the psychiatrist (control arm). Re-admission was defined as hospitalization within one year after release by the PC/end of hospitalization.

Results

From 3,160 IHR between 2010 and 2015, 1,338 were re-hospitalized during a year after release, 317 (41.7%) from the research arm and 1,012 (42.6%) from the control arm, p < 0.7. Discharge of IHP by PC during first month of the involuntary hospitalization resulted in a higher re-admission rates than IHR from the control group (58.4% vs. 46.4%, respectively, p < 0.001). Yet, discharge of IHR by the PC after one month of hospitalization (or end of the hospitalization) resulted in lower re-admission rates (14.8% vs. 53.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). Risks factors for re-admission included male gender, Israeli born, single and diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Conclusions

Re-admission rates were higher in IHR who were released by the PC during the first month of hospitalization. The first month is important for mental and therapeutic stabilization of IHP. After 30 days, release of IHP can be re-assessed according to the patients’ situation. Early discharge of males who were diagnosed with schizophrenia should be carefully assessed.

Key messages

• Early discharge of psychiatric patients from involuntary hospitalization should be assesses only after the first 30 days of hospital admission, especially among young males with schizophrenia.

• Early discharge of psychiatric patients from involuntary hospitalization should be assesses only after the first 30 days of hospital admission, especially among young males with schizophrenia.

Unsettled Liability Issues for "Prediagnostic" Wearables and Health-Related Products

This Viewpoint examines the murky legal treatment of various health-related wearable or other general wellness products for patients, physicians, and manufacturers, and recommends solutions.

Should Alexa diagnose Alzheimer's?: Legal and ethical issues with at-home consumer devices

Voice-based AI-powered digital assistants, such as Alexa, Siri, and Google Assistant, present an exciting opportunity to translate healthcare from the hospital to the home. But building a digital, medical panopticon can raise many legal and ethical challenges if not designed and implemented thoughtfully. This paper highlights the benefits and explores some of the challenges of using digital assistants to detect early signs of cognitive impairment, focusing on issues such as consent, bycatching, privacy, and regulatory oversight. By using a fictional but plausible near-future hypothetical, we demonstrate why an "ethics-by-design" approach is necessary for consumer-monitoring tools that may be used to identify health concerns for their users.

The oversight of autonomous artificial intelligence: lessons from nurse practitioners as physician extenders

The development of autonomous artificial intelligence (A-AI) products in health care raises novel regulatory challenges, including how to ensure their safety and efficacy in real-world settings. Supplementing a device-centered regulatory scheme with a regulatory scheme that considers A-AI products as a 'physician extender' may improve the real-world monitoring of these technologies and produce other benefits, such as increased access to the services offered by these products. In this article, we review the three approaches to the oversight of nurse practitioners, one type of physician extender, in the USA and extrapolate these approaches to produce a framework for the oversight of A-AI products. Under the framework, the US Food and Drug Administration would evaluate A-AI products and determine whether they are allowed to operate independently of physician oversight; required to operate under some physician oversight via a 'collaborative protocol' model; or required to operate under direct physician oversight via a 'supervisory protocol' model.

Skating the line between general wellness products and regulated devices: strategies and implications

Health technology is advancing at a rapid clip, with many of these technologies appearing on consumer products like smartphones and tablets. Federal regulators have responded to these changes with a flexible approach that allows firms to manufacture a 'general wellness product' ('GWP') without being subject to regulation typically applied to 'devices' that diagnose or treat a disease or condition. Using currently available medical products and devices from across a spectrum of diseases, we describe how firms can use this existing regulatory framework to develop innovative products by 'skating the line' between mostly unregulated GWPs and regulated devices. On the one hand, we find that skating the line offers a variety of benefits, including potential improvements to product development, innovation, and patient access to medical technologies. On the other hand, we show that this technique has potential costs to patient safety, competition, and data sharing. Skating the regulatory line between GWP and devices, in other words, offers important benefits but is not without risks. Any further regulatory action to address such risks should be careful to leave significant unregulated space for product development.

When Is a Change Significant? The Update Problem of Apps in Medical and Behavioral Research

Digital applications (apps) are commonly used across the research ecosystem. While apps are frequently updated in the course of clinical and behavioral research, there is limited guidance as to when an app update should trigger action related to human research participant protections and who should be responsible for monitoring and reviewing these updates. We term this the "update problem" and argue that, while it is the principal investigator's duty to track all relevant updates, the level of involvement and re-review by the institutional review board (IRB) of an approved research protocol should vary depending on whether the update may be classified as minor, not minor, or significant. Minor updates require at most annual notification of the IRB, updates that are not minor require prompt notification of the IRB, and significant updates may require full board re-review or another response. We also suggest how these policies might be implemented.

"I'd feel like someone was watchin' me… watching for a good reason": perceptions of data privacy, access, and sharing in the context of real-time PrEP adherence monitoring among HIV-negative MSM with substance use

Once-daily oral tenofovir/emtricitabine is highly effective as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) against HIV but is dependent on adherence, which may be challenging for men who have sex with men (MSM) and use substances. Digital pill systems (DPS) permit the direct, real-time measurement of adherence, though user perceptions of data privacy in this context are unknown. Thirty prospective DPS users - HIV-negative MSM with non-alcohol substance use - completed in-depth qualitative interviews exploring preferences around privacy, access, and sharing of DPS adherence data. Participants discussed some concerns about the impact of DPS use on personal privacy, and emphasized the need for robust data protections in the technology. Participants were interested in having on-demand access to their adherence data, and were most willing to share data with primary care providers and long-term relationship partners. Future investigations exploring bioethical frameworks around DPS use are warranted, and user preferences should inform best practices for protecting DPS data.

Telehealth to Address Health Disparities: Potential, Pitfalls, and Paths Ahead

Telehealth has the potential to address health disparities, but not without deliberate choices about how to implement it. To support vulnerable patients, health policy leaders must pursue creative solutions such as public-private partnerships, broadband infrastructure, and value-based payment. Without these initiatives or others like them, health disparities are likely to persist despite telehealth's tantalizing potential.

COVID-19 Antibody Testing as a Precondition for Employment: Ethical and Legal Considerations

Employers and governments are interested in the use of serological (antibody) testing to allow people to return to work before there is a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. We articulate the preconditions needed for the implementation of antibody testing, including the role of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

Regulatory, safety, and privacy concerns of home monitoring technologies during COVID-19

There has been increasing interest in the use of home monitoring technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic to decrease interpersonal contacts and the resultant risks of exposure for people to the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. This Perspective explores how the accelerated development of these technologies also raises major concerns pertaining to safety and privacy. We make recommendations for needed interventions to ensure safety and review best practices and US regulatory requirements for privacy and security. We discuss, among other topics, Emergency Use Authorizations for medical devices and privacy laws of the USA and Europe.

AI Surveillance during Pandemics: Ethical Implementation Imperatives

Artificial intelligence surveillance can be used to diagnose individual cases, track the spread of Covid‐19, and help provide care. The use of AI for surveillance purposes (such as detecting new Covid‐19 cases and gathering data from healthy and ill individuals) in a pandemic raises multiple concerns ranging from privacy to discrimination to access to care. Luckily, there exist several frameworks that can help guide stakeholders, especially physicians but also AI developers and public health officials, as they navigate these treacherous shoals. While these frameworks were not explicitly designed for AI surveillance during a pandemic, they can be adapted to help address concerns regarding privacy, human rights, and due process and equality. In a time where the rapid implementation of all tools available is critical to ending a pandemic, physicians, public health officials, and technology companies should understand the criteria for the ethical implementation of AI surveillance.

Criminal Justice or Public Health: A Comparison of the Representation of the Crack Cocaine and Opioid Epidemics in the Media

CONTEXT

The opioid epidemic is a major US public health crisis. Its scope prompted significant public outreach, but this response triggered a series of journalistic articles comparing the opioid epidemic to the crack cocaine epidemic. Some authors claimed that the political response to the crack cocaine epidemic was criminal justice rather than medical in nature, motivated by divergent racial demographics.

METHODS

We examine these assertions by analyzing the language used in relevant newspaper articles. Using a national sample, we compare word frequencies from articles about crack cocaine in 1988-89 and opioids in 2016-17 to evaluate media framings. We also examine articles about methamphetamines in 1992-93 and heroin throughout the three eras to distinguish between narratives used to describe the crack cocaine and opioid epidemics.

FINDINGS

We find support for critics' hypotheses about the differential framing of the two epidemics: articles on the opioid epidemic are likelier to use medical terminology than criminal justice terminology while the reverse is true for crack cocaine articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that race and legality may influence policy responses to substance-use epidemics. Comparisons also suggest that the evolution of the media narrative on substance use cannot alone account for the divergence in framing between the two epidemics.

When Are Vaccine Mandates Appropriate?

Vaccine refusal is a serious public health problem, especially in the context of diseases with potential to spark global pandemics, such as Ebola virus disease in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This article examines whether and when compelling vaccination through mandates and criminalization, for example, are appropriate. It argues that some legal approaches are ethical when they preserve social stability, trust in government, therapeutic research opportunities, or when they diminish disease severity.

Truth in Advertising: Disclosure of Participant Payment in Research Recruitment Materials

The practice of paying research participants has received significant attention in the bioethics literature, but the focus has been almost exclusively on consideration of factors relevant to determining acceptable payment amounts. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to what happens once the payment amount is set. What are the ethical parameters around how offers of payment may be advertised to prospective participants? This article seeks to answer this question, focusing on the ethical and practical issues associated with disclosing information about payment, and payment amounts in particular, in recruitment materials. We argue that it is permissible-and indeed typically ethically desirable-for recruitment materials to disclose the amount that participants will be paid. Further, we seek to clarify the regulatory guidance on "emphasizing" payment in a way that can facilitate design and review of recruitment materials.

Recent developments in health law. Administrative law v. constitutional law: the correct decision on FDA's treatment of Plan B

In order for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to receive the trust and deference it needs to accomplish its mission, it must be seen as relatively impervious to political manipulation. For most of the FDA’s history, it has been seen as an institution driven by scientific expertise, not by political maneuvering. However, the FDA was increasingly criticized during the Bush administration for politicizing decisions such as rejecting an application to grant the “morning after pill,” known as Plan B, over-the-counter (OTC) status for women of all ages. After an atypical approval process, the FDA approved OTC Plan B use only for women over the age of 18. Because some groups perceive the morning after pill as a form of abortion, the politically appointed leadership of the FDA was suspected of dramatically departing from normal FDA procedures in order to ensure that the application would not be approved.

Recent developments in health law

In May of 2006, the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Development Drugs (Abigail) appeared to have won a victory when a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) ruled that “terminally ill, mentally competent adult patients” had a constitutionally protected right to access investigational medications. This victory was short lived, however. On August 7, 2007, the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc reversed this earlier decision, marking a setback in Abigail's campaign for removal of the regulatory barriers that currently prevent terminally ill patients from gaining early access to investigational drugs (i.e., experimental drugs). This loss represents a big blow for Abigail's cause, because there is no guarantee that they will have another day in court, and attaining their goal through other branches of the government remains uncertain.