Negatively Informed Consent Summary

The central argument of this case is on how to conduct a study for a potential cure for the Ebola virus. Specifically, the researchers have to decide if they should do a blinded experiment or a non-randomized experiment. The problem with this choice is that a proportion of those involved with the study would purposely be given a placebo, or no drug. The other option is to give everyone within the study doses of the drug. This has the problem of producing less than accurate results, since data on the trial drug would be mixed with data on previous drugs, thus prolonging the amount of research necessary. Adding to this difficulty is the fact that Ebola is a virus that lacks treatment, so any research for a cure is vital. However, in order to make a decision on this matter, one must take into account the principles of beneficence, autonomy and justice. Other principles include utilitarianism and deontology. Both of these values help decipher which course should be taken. The people who will be influenced in this study are those who are poor and in less favorable economic standing. In my opinion, the physicians should commit to a non-randomized trial, since more individuals can be treated. One principle that would support non-randomized trial is the principle of autonomy. That is, the physicians must make sure that they respect the free will of the patient. Such as procuring informed consent from the patient before including them in the research. However, the likely hood of an Ebola patient having the knowledge needed to understand a cure is slim. The reason for this is that most countries that have Ebola outbreaks are developing countries. Thus, a non-randomized trial would avoid using the ignorance of the patients purely for research, since everyone would receive treatment. Physicians themselves have the duty of administering proper treatments to a patient. For the Ebola victims, this would include any experimental treatment, since they have few options as it is. However, obtaining consent is a very important aspect of research. This argument is covered well within the “Autonomy and Negatively Informed Consent” which is authored by Kihlbom and is an article of the Journal of Medical Ethics. The article “Autonomy and Negatively Informed Consent” focuses on what defines consent for a patient. …show more content…
Specifically, the article states that the principle of autonomy is not only important, but it is very easy to undermine. To start, informed consent is considered as fulfilling the principle of autonomy. However, as stated before, patients can give their informed consent without understanding anything about the treatment. As such, the author states that this is a form of negative consent, where the patient cannot make a fully autonomous choice because they cannot understand the possible outcomes. This is further complicated by the fact that patients can have negative and positive beliefs. Negative beliefs are those that the patient is certain won’t happen to them. Positive beliefs are the outcomes that the patient believes can happen to them. These beliefs must be well informed, as stated by Kihlbom, and in many cases relies on the trust between patient and physician. Overall, Kihlbom argues that establishing informed consent depends on how well a patient can understand specific procedures, which is a key concern for the patients in the Ebola cure case. The people who are involved in these studies often represent the less economically stable population of each country. These people have less access to health care, and do not have the income to procure many treatments. As such, they are more likely to sign up for any cure that is offered, even if they become part of a blind test. Such a study should have a large number of participants, thus all of them should receive treatments so that everyone can benefit. However, those who do participate can be coerced to …show more content…
Considering that the non-randomized trial used older drugs, it treated every patient who was involved in the study. Furthermore, the physicians were able to collect useful data about the drug they were studying. Thus, both the patients and the physicians benefited from the study. The patients received a treatment; regardless of whether it was the drug being tested or an older treatment. Any physician in this study displayed both beneficence and a respect for autonomy. Both of these principles are important to any medical