Therapeutic misconception—a false belief that individuals will benefit from participating in research—can bias informed consent. Ethics consultants can help by engaging participants’ and researchers’ understandings of risks and benefits and by asking good questions about the influences of researchers’ enthusiasm.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1100-1106. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1100.
A look at current literature and work by a statewide initiative can motivate development of policies that help respond to unrepresented patients’ needs.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(7):E611-616. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.611.
When patients are unable to express their wishes and do not have surrogates or advance directives, which and whose values should inform decision making for them? We discuss ethical complexities of caring for unrepresented patients.
Shared decision making honors patient autonomy, particularly for preference-sensitive care decisions and even when patients have impaired decision-making capacity.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E358-364. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.358.
Haley Moulton, Benjamin Moulton, JD, MPH, Tim Lahey, MD, MMSc, and Glyn Elwyn, MD, PhD, MSc
Shared decision making in research informed consent conversations is complex due to diverse and potentially divergent interests of investigators and patient-subjects.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E365-371. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.365.