Search

The near-routine exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research has resulted in evidence gaps that endanger the health of pregnant women and their future offspring. Although existing literature documents numerous obstacles along the clinical trial pathway that can stymie research involving pregnant women, there is little guidance on how to facilitate such research. This qualitative study aims to fill that void by examining the experiences of individuals involved in conducting, approving, or overseeing research involving pregnant women at one academic institution. The study identifies factors throughout the clinical pathway-from protocol development, to IRB review, and ultimately trial execution-that likely contribute to the successful conduct of research with pregnant women. Attention to those factors, coupled with agreement among stakeholders that research with pregnant women should and can be done ethically and legally, is critical to shifting the narrative from "why we cannot" do such research to "how we can."

Clinical trials to address the COVID-19 public health emergency have broadly excluded pregnant people from participation, illustrating a long-standing trend of clinical trial exclusion that has led to a clear knowledge gap and unmet need in the treatment and prevention of medical conditions experienced during pregnancy and of pregnancy-related conditions. Drugs (includes products such as drugs, biologics, biosimilars and vaccines) approved for a certain medical condition in adults are also approved for use in pregnant adults with the same medical condition, unless contraindicated for use in pregnancy. However, there are limited pregnancy-specific data on risks and benefits of drugs in pregnant people, despite their approval for all adults. The United States Food and Drug Administration-approved medical products are used widely by pregnant people, 90% of whom take at least 1 medication during the course of their pregnancy despite there being sparse data from clinical trials on these products in pregnancy. This overall lack of clinical data precludes informed decision-making, causing clinicians and pregnant patients to have to decide whether to pursue treatment without an adequate understanding of potential effects. Although some United States Food and Drug Administration initiatives and other federal efforts have helped to promote the inclusion of pregnant people in clinical research, broader collaboration and reforms are needed to address challenges related to the design and conduct of trials that enroll pregnant people, and to forge a culture of widespread inclusion of pregnant people in clinical research. This article summarizes the scientific, ethical, and legal considerations governing research conducted during pregnancy, as discussed during a recent subject matter expert convening held by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy and the United States Food and Drug Administration on this topic. This article also recommends strategies for overcoming impediments to inclusion and trial conduct.

Drawing on the ethical principles of the Belmont Report, this chapter critically examines the legacy and current policies and practices in the United States related to the inclusion of women in clinical research. Historically, protectionist policies and practices excluded women from research participation, justified by, for example, reliance on the male norm, male bias, and fears of legal liability resulting from tragic cases of fetal harm. Recognition of the ensuing harms to women’s health from exclusion and underrepresentation in research led to significant policy changes in the 1990s encouraging women’s participation in research. Although the knowledge gap in women’s health is narrowing, significant challenges remain, including the need to develop robust approaches to defining sex and gender, identifying and analyzing sex and gender differences, and acknowledging and addressing intersectionality and women’s health needs across their life spans.

Congenital bilateral renal agenesis has been considered a uniformly fatal condition. However, the report of using serial amnioinfusions followed by the live birth in 2012 and ongoing survival of a child with bilateral renal agenesis has generated hope, but also considerable controversy over an array of complex clinical and ethical concerns. To assess the ethical concerns associated with using serial amnioinfusions for bilateral renal agenesis, we assembled a multidisciplinary group to map the ethical issues relevant to this novel intervention. The key ethical issues identified were related to 1) potential risks and benefits, 2) clinical care compared with innovation compared with research, 3) counseling of expectant parents, 4) consent, 5) outcome measures, 6) access and justice, 7) conflicts of interest, 8) effects on clinicians, 9) effects on institutions, and 10) long-term societal implications. These ethical issues should be addressed in conjunction with systematic efforts to examine whether this intervention is safe and effective. Future work should capture the experiences of expectant parents, women who undergo serial amnioinfusions, those born with bilateral renal agenesis and their families as well as clinicians confronted with making difficult choices related to it.

In recent decades, a wide range of abrupt and unpredictable events—including bioterrorism, natural disasters, industrial disasters, and infectious disease outbreaks—have endangered population health and challenged even the most advanced public health and health care systems. Affected populations may face imminent risk to life or health; scarce medical resources; lack of food, water, and shelter; electrical power outages; and interrupted communication. The urgent need to mitigate harms to population health may necessitate rapid decision-making, with incomplete or imperfect information, against a backdrop of political, economic, and social instability. These defining characteristics of public health emergencies are morally significant, not only because they present normatively complex questions about what constitutes an ethical emergency response, but also because they highlight the vital importance of incorporating ethics into public health emergency preparedness.

Sexual and reproductive health is an important aspect of individual health and well-being, as well as a significant determinant of public health. This chapter uses a public health ethics lens to illuminate three examples of moral complexity arising in sexual and reproductive health: social justice, contested views of harms and benefits, and self-determination. The chapter also provides an overview of the four chapters in this dedicated section of The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics. The section’s chapters provide a focused examination of public health ethics in the context of STI control measures, contraception, abortion, and pregnancy-related services.

Although the concept of dignity is commonly invoked in clinical care, there is not widespread agree- ment—in either the academic literature or in everyday clinical conversations—about what dignity means. Without a framework for understanding dignity, it is diffi cult to determine what threatens patients' dignity and, conversely, how to honor commitments to protect and promote it. This article aims to change that by offering the fi rst conceptual model of dignity for patients in the intensive care unit. The conceptual model we present is based on the notion that there are three sources of patients' dignity—their shared humanity, personal narratives, and autonomy—each of which independently warrants respect. The article describes each source of dignity and draws on examples to illustrate how clinician attitudes, actions, and behaviors can either contribute to, or detract from, expressions of respect for patient dignity.

Although pregnant women rely on medical interventions to treat and prevent a wide variety of health conditions, they are frequently excluded or underrepresented in clinical research. The resulting dearth of pregnancy-specific evidence to guide clinical decisionmaking routinely exposes pregnant women, and their future offspring, to risk of uncertain harms for uncertain benefits. The two legal factors regularly cited as obstacles to such research are the federal regulatory scheme and fear of liability. This article reveals a far more nuanced and complex view of the legal context. First, legal professionals may—at any time from product conception to marketing—influence decisions about research with pregnant women. Second, factors not previously articulated in the literature may prompt legal professionals to slow or halt such research. They include: financial interests, regulatory ambiguity, obstacles to risk management, and site-specific laws unrelated to research. Any efforts to promote the ethical inclusion of pregnant women in research must acknowledge the role of legal decisionmakers and address their professional concerns.

The annual Bioethics and Law Roundtable, jointly sponsored by the Law & Health Care Program at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, convened in April 2012 to address "Human Subjects Research Regulations: Proposals for Reform." This paper serves as the introduction to the seven papers presented at the symposium that discuss the prospects and challenges of revising the Common Rule. The publisher prohibits posting of the article to repositories and personal webpages. Access to the full text is available at the publisher's website.

The federal regulations that govern biomedical research, most notably those enshrined in the Common Rule, express a protectionist ethos aimed at safeguarding subjects of human experimentation from the potential harms of research participation. In at least one critical way, however, the regulations have always fallen short of this promise: if a subject suffers a research-related injury, then neither the investigator nor the sponsor has any legal obligation under the regulations to care for or compensate the subject. Because very few subjects with research-related injuries can meet the financial or evidentiary requirements associated with a successful legal claim to recover the costs associated with their injuries, most injured subjects must shoulder the burden of those expenses alone. For 40 years, national advisory panels have concluded that this result is out of step with the Common Rule's otherwise protectionist promise. When the Department of Health and Human Services released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2011, suggesting potential changes to the Common Rule, the time seemed ripe to address research-related injuries. The ANPRM, however, makes no mention of compensation for research-related injuries, and the federal government once again seems poised to stop short of addressing what has arguably become the most longstanding, frequent, and consistent plea for regulatory reform of research: protections for injured subjects. This article asks why, despite decades of federal-level panels recommending no-fault compensation for research-related injuries, the United States has so strongly resisted change. I suggest that a central reason for our current impasse is that, despite consensus among federal advisory committees that there is an obligation to compensate injured subjects, the committees have not coalesced around a moral justification for that duty. Although multiple justifications can support and even strengthen a single ethical obligation, the reverse has occurred in this context. I demonstrate that the committees' articulation of multiple ethical principles - including humanitarianism, professional beneficence, and compensatory justice - results in incongruent obligations that favor different kinds of compensation systems. This outcome, which I call "moral gridlock," makes it extremely difficult to determine what kind of compensation scheme to implement. Recognizing that each moral argument for compensation creates a slightly different trajectory is, however, an important first step in moving toward a more systematic approach to compensating injured research subjects.

Objective Concerns about including pregnant women in research have led to a dearth of evidence to guide safe and effective treatment and prevention of HIV in pregnancy. To better understand why these evidence gaps persist and inform guidance for responsible inclusion of pregnant women in the HIV research agenda, we aimed to learn what HIV experts perceive as barriers and constraints to conducting this research. Methods We conducted a series of group and one-on-one consultations with 62 HIV investigators and clinicians to elicit their views and experiences conducting HIV research involving pregnant women. Thematic analysis was used to identify priorities and perceived barriers to HIV research with pregnant women. Results Experts discussed a breadth of needed research, including safety, efficacy, and appropriate dosing of: newer antiretrovirals for pregnant women, emerging preventive strategies, and treatment for coinfections. Challenges to conducting research on pregnancy and HIV included ethical concerns, such as how to weigh risks and benefits in pregnancy; legal concerns, such as restrictive interpretations of current regulations and liability issues; financial and professional disincentives, including misaligned funder priorities and fear of reputational damage; and analytical and logistical complexities, such as challenges recruiting and retaining pregnant women to sufficiently power analyses. Conclusion Investigators face numerous challenges to conducting needed HIV research with pregnant women. Advancing such research will require clearer guidance regarding ethical and legal uncertainties; incentives that encourage rather than discourage investigators to undertake such research; and a commitment to earlier development of safety and efficacy data through creative trial designs.

Mr Halabi and Dr Omer proposed the creation of a global vaccine injury compensation program.1 Although there is a need for a mechanism to address the liability concerns of vaccine manufacturers and ensure fair treatment of individuals with vaccine-related injuries, the authors failed to attend to legal complexities inherent in their proposal.