rss
J Med Ethics 2008;34:751-756 doi:10.1136/jme.2007.023168
  • Research ethics

“I don’t like that, it’s tricking people too much…”: acute informed consent to participation in a trial of thrombolysis for stroke

  1. M Mangset1,
  2. R Førde2,
  3. J Nessa3,
  4. E Berge4,
  5. T Bruun Wyller1
  1. 1
    University of Oslo, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Ullevaal University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  2. 2
    University of Oslo, Centre for Medical Ethics, Oslo, Norway
  3. 3
    University of Bergen, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Bergen, Norway
  4. 4
    Department of Internal Medicine, Ullevaal University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  1. Dr M Mangset, University of Oslo, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Ullevaal University Hospital, NO-0407 Oslo, Norway; margrete.mangset{at}medisin.uio.no
  • Accepted 16 January 2008

Abstract

Background: Informed consent is regarded as a contract between autonomous and equal parties and requires the elements of information disclosure, understanding, voluntariness and consent. The validity of informed consent for critically ill patients has been questioned. Little is known about how these patients experience the process of consent.

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore critically ill patients’ experience with the principle of informed consent in a clinical trial and their ability to give valid informed consent.

Design: 11 stroke patients who had been informed about thrombolytic treatment and had been through the process of deciding whether or not to participate in a thrombolysis trial went through repeated qualitative semistructured interviews.

Results: None of the patients had any clear understanding of the purpose of the trial. Neither did they understand the principles of randomisation and voluntariness. Reasons for giving or not giving consent were trust, conceptions of benefits and risks and altruism. Several patients found it immoral to involve patients in the consent procedure and argued that this was the doctors’ responsibility. Others argued that it is a duty to question patients and perceived it as a sign of being treated with respect and dignity. A majority of the patients found the consent process vague and ambiguous.

Conclusions: The results indicate that the principle of informed consent from critically ill patients cannot be seen as a contract between equal and autonomous parties. Further studies are needed to explore critically ill patients’ experiences with the process of informed consent.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Funding: This study received a research scholarship from the Nursing Research Section at Ullevaal University Hospital and support from the interdisciplinary Ethics Programme at the University of Oslo. The authors’ work is independent of this funding.

  • Ethics approval: Approval number 279-03124 was granted by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics in the Eastern Health Region, Norway.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.