Search

This research presents the results of a study about people with failed metal-on-metal hip implants, and draws on the STS concept of the technological imperative alongside research on the value of patient knowledge in clinical settings and the legitimacy of embodied stories. Popularly understood as positive and life changing, hip replacement surgery was hailed as 'the operation of the century', until a series of widespread failures of hundreds of thousands of hip implants, known collectively as metal-on-metal (MoM) hips, drew attention to the poor regulation of medical implants. This paper argues that poor regulation intersects with narratives of patients' pain, which are obstructed by surgeons and the UK regulatory body, with the effect of denying both patients' embodied experiences of implant failure, and their restitution to good health. Patient narratives about problems with their hip implant are the wellspring from which scientific evidence emerges which can indicate widespread implant failure. By obstructing these narratives the regulatory system undermines the very evidence it needs to operate effectively., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Purpose: We sought to assess the readiness of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service to implement a Genomic Medicine Service. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify what is known about factors related to the implementation of genomic medicine in routine health care and to draw out the implications for the UK and other settings., Methods: Relevant studies were identified in Web of Science and PubMed from their date of inception to April 2018. The review included primary research studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, and systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted., Results: Fifty-five studies met our inclusion criteria. The majority of studies reviewed were conducted in the United States. We identified four domains: (1) systems, (2) training and workforce needs, (3) professional attitudes and values, and (4) the role of patients and the public., Conclusion: Mainstreaming genomic medicine into routine clinical practice requires actions at each level of the health-care system. Our synthesis emphasized the organizational, social, and cultural implications of reforming practice, highlighting that demonstration of clinical utility and cost-effectiveness, attending to the compatibility of genomic medicine with clinical principles, and involving and engaging patients are key to successful implementation.

In subsection "Genetics/genomics specialists" sentence beginning "Five…" cited reference 32 (Schwarze et al. 2018) and should have been reference 34 (Carroll et al. 2016). While in subsection "The value of genomic medicine" sentence beginning "V…" should have read "'Vassy et al…." Finally, in the same subsection, sentence beginning "Christensen and," should have read "Christensen and Green." The PDF and HTML versions of the Article have been modified accordingly.

The new 'Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on research on biological materials of human origin', adopted in Europe in May 2016 is confusing and lacks specificity on the research use of biomaterials taken from persons not able to consent. It is possible to interpret the relevant clauses in a restrictive manner and doing so would hamper biobank research, by requiring researchers or biobank curators to examine individual records in detail, to check they are adhering to the Recommendation. This would be particularly problematic for muscular dystrophy and other rare disease research, the progress of which relies increasingly on the sharing of biomaterials and data internationally, as it will add complexity to the logistics of biomaterials and data sharing and introduce barriers for researchers preparing biomaterials for sharing. Such barriers are contradictory to EC policies on promoting and funding rare disease research and removing barriers to better care and treatment. Such policies work in concert with international progress in rare disease research, in particular the NIH's Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network and Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Centre. The rare disease community has in recent years worked to create a common framework of harmonised approaches to enable the responsible, voluntary, and secure sharing of biomaterials and data. These efforts are supported by the European Commission in such moves as FP7 funding to advance rare disease research and the introduction of National Plans for rare disease; and are bolstered by similar efforts in the USA via the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program and the NIH/NCATS Patient Registry developments. Introducing Recommendations from the Committee of Ministers, containing clauses which are incompatible to the efforts to advance rare disease research, seems counter-productive.

Within the myriad articles about participants' opinions of genomics research, the views of a distinct group - people with a rare disease (RD) - are unknown. It is important to understand if their opinions differ from the general public by dint of having a rare disease and vulnerabilities inherent in this. Here we document RD patients' attitudes to participation in genomics research, particularly around large-scale, international data and biosample sharing. This work is unique in exploring the views of people with a range of rare disorders from many different countries. The authors work within an international, multidisciplinary consortium, RD-Connect, which has developed an integrated platform connecting databases, registries, biobanks and clinical bioinformatics for RD research. Focus groups were conducted with 52 RD patients from 16 countries. Using a scenario-based approach, participants were encouraged to raise topics relevant to their own experiences, rather than these being determined by the researcher. Issues include wide data sharing, and consent for new uses of historic samples and for children. Focus group members are positively disposed towards research and towards allowing data and biosamples to be shared internationally. Expressions of trust and attitudes to risk are often affected by the nature of the RD which they have experience of, as well as regulatory and cultural practices in their home country. Participants are concerned about data security and misuse. There is an acute recognition of the vulnerability inherent in having a RD and the possibility that open knowledge of this could lead to discrimination.

The increased international sharing of data in research consortia and the introduction of new technologies for sequencing challenge the informed consent (IC) process, adding complexities that require coordination between research centres worldwide. Rare disease consortia present special challenges since available data and samples may be very limited. Thus, it is especially relevant to ensure the best use of available resources but at the same time protect patients' right to integrity. To achieve this aim, there is an ethical duty to plan in advance the best possible consent procedure in order to address possible ethical and legal hurdles that could hamper research in the future. Therefore, it is especially important to identify key core elements (CEs) to be addressed in the IC documents for international collaborative research in two different situations: (1) new research collections (biobanks and registries) for which information documents can be created according to current guidelines and (2) established collections obtained without IC or with a previous consent that does not cover all CEs. We propose here a strategy to deal with consent in these situations. The principles have been applied and are in current practice within the RD-Connect consortia - a global research infrastructure funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework program but forward looking in terms of issues addressed. However, the principles established, the lessons learned and the implications for future research are of direct relevance to all internationally collaborative rare-disease projects.

There is a growing international agreement on the need to provide greater access to research data and bio-specimen collections to optimize their long-term value and exploit their potential for health discovery and validation. This is especially evident for rare disease research. Currently, the rising value of data and bio-specimen collections does not correspond with an equal increase in data/sample-sharing and data/sample access. Contradictory legal and ethical frameworks across national borders are obstacles to effective sharing: more specifically, the absence of an integrated model proves to be a major logistical obstruction. The Charter intends to amend the obstacle by providing both the ethical foundations on which data sharing should be based, as well as a general Material and Data Transfer Agreement (MTA/DTA). This Charter is the result of a careful negotiation of different stakeholders' interest and is built on earlier consensus documents and position statements, which provided the general international legal framework. Further to this, the Charter provides tools that may help accelerate sharing. The Charter has been formulated to serve as an enabling tool for effective and transparent data and bio-specimen sharing and the general MTA/DTA constitutes a mechanism to ensure uniformity of access across projects and countries, and may be regarded as a consistent basic agreement for addressing data and material sharing globally. The Charter is forward looking in terms of emerging issues from the perspective of a multi-stakeholder group, and where possible, provides strategies that may address these issues.

Although the therapeutic misconception (TM) has been well described over a period of approximately 20 years, there has been disagreement about its implications for informed consent to research. In this paper we review some of the history and debate over the ethical implications of TM but also bring a new perspective to those debates. Drawing upon our experience of working in the context of translational research for rare childhood diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, we consider the ethical and legal implications of the TM for parental consent to research. In this situation, it is potentially the parent who is vulnerable to TM. In our analysis we not only consider the context of informed consent for research but also the wider environment in which the value of research is promoted, more broadly through the media but also more specifically through the communication strategies of patient organizations. All dissemination about developments in research for health runs the risk of portraying an overly optimistic view of the promise of biotechnological solutions and has the potential to encourage a 'collective' TM. In this paper we consider the challenge that TM presents to parents as well as explore the ethical and legal responsibilities of researchers to ensure an appropriately informed consent: compatible with a hopeful disposition of parents who consent for the their children whilst avoiding a blind and misleading optimism.

Hip implants have provided life-changing treatment, reducing pain and improving the mobility and independence of patients. Success has encouraged manufacturers to innovate and amend designs, engendering patient hopes in these devices. However, failures of medical implants do occur. The failure rate of the Articular Surface Replacement metal-on-metal hip system, implanted almost 100,000 times world-wide, has re-opened debate about appropriate and timely implant governance. As commercial interests, patient hopes, and devices' governance converge in a socio-technical crisis, we analyse the responses of relevant governance stakeholders in the United Kingdom between 2007 and 2014. We argue that there has been a systemic failure of the governance system entrusted with the safety of patients fitted with medical implants. Commercial considerations of medical implants and the status quo of medical implant governance have been given priority over patient safety despite the availability of significant failure data in an example of uncertainty about what constitutes appropriate precautionary action.

In this paper we argue that the consensus around normative standards for the ethics of research in clinical trials, strongly influenced by the Declaration of Helsinki, is perceived from various quarters as too conservative and potentially restrictive of research that is seen as urgent and necessary. We examine this problem from the perspective of various challengers who argue for alternative approaches to what ought or ought not to be permitted. Key themes within this analysis will examine these claims and argue they have implications for the interests of the research subject, research governance and regulation. Using our work with TREAT-NMD, the neuromuscular clinical trials network, we posit that there is a place for advancing the discourse of moral rights and moral duties in the context of research, especially from the perspective of patients and their families, and for including the politics of patient activism and empowerment. At the same time we remain vigilant to the danger that the therapeutic misconception and other serious vulnerabilities for the patient population in clinical trials, are at risk of being overlooked., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Drug trials in children engage with many ethical issues, from drug-related safety concerns to communication with patients and parents, and recruitment and informed consent procedures. This paper addresses the field of neuromuscular disorders where the possibility of genetic, mutation-specific treatments, has added new complexity. Not only must trial design address issues of equity of access, but researchers must also think through the implications of adopting a personalised medicine approach, which requires a precise molecular diagnosis, in addition to other implications of developing orphan drugs. It is against this background of change and complexity that the Project Ethics Council (PEC) was established within the TREAT-NMD EU Network of Excellence. The PEC is a high level advisory group that draws upon the expertise of its interdisciplinary membership which includes clinicians, lawyers, scientists, parents, representatives of patient organisations, social scientists and ethicists. In this paper we describe the establishment and terms of reference of the PEC, give an indication of the range and depth of its work and provide some analysis of the kinds of complex questions encountered. The paper describes how the PEC has responded to substantive ethical issues raised within the TREAT-NMD consortium and how it has provided a wider resource for any concerned parent, patient, or clinician to ask a question of ethical concern. Issues raised range from science related ethical issues, issues related to hereditary neuromuscular diseases and the new therapeutic approaches and questions concerning patients rights in the context of patient registries and bio-banks. We conclude by recommending the PEC as a model for similar research contexts in rare diseases.