Phenomenon of a therapeutic misconception: Bioethical aspect

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. The obligatory study of medical drugs during clinical trials conduction can be named as one of the fundamental principles of evidence-based medicine. The article deals with the phenomenon of a therapeutic misconception occurring in volunteers participating in such experiments, who failed to understand the scientific goals of clinical trials and incorrectly expect the therapeutical advantages linked with such a participation. It is analyzed which methodological decisions can cause a therapeutic misconception, and also the main bioethical risks associated with this phenomenon are indicated. Theoretical analysis. It is shown that the procedure of the receipt of informed consent form is the main problematic aspect for an adequate understanding of clinical trials’ goals by its volunteers, and violation of the principle of patient autonomy can be named as a primary bioethical risk. During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a heterogeneity of therapeutic strategies fixed because of the lack of knowledge about the new pathogen. As a result, the inability to adequately assess the risks of the intended treatment both by a patient and a doctor became a new factor that caused the therapeutic misconception. Conclusion. The procedure for obtaining informed consent form is supposed to be revised, the additional analysis of the methodology of clinical trials should be done to reduce the risk of a therapeutic misconception.

About the authors

Maria Andreevna Nartova

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

119991, Russian Federation, Moscow, Lenin Hills microdistrict, 1.

References

  1. Faden R. R., Beauchamp T. L. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press, 1986. 408 p.
  2. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki (1964). Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects (with clarifi cations). URL: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinkiethical-principles-for-medical-research-involvinghuman-subjects/ (дата обращения: 21.06.2023).
  3. Jefford M., Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents // The Lancet Oncology. 2008. Vol. 9, № 5. P. 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70128-1
  4. Appelbaum P. S., Roth L. H., Lidz C. The therapeutic misconception: Informed consent in psychiatric research // International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 1982. Vol. 5, № 3–4. P. 319–329.
  5. Radcliffe N. M., Klein W. M. Dispositional, unrealistic, and comparative optimism: Differential relations with the knowledge and processing of risk information and beliefs about personal risks // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002. Vol. 28. P. 836–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289012
  6. Семенова Н. В., Янушко М. Г., Яковлева Ю. А. Этические проблемы информированного добровольного согласия у больных шизофренией в связи с особенностями их когнитивного функционирования // Обозрение психиатрии и медицинской психологии имени В. М. Бехтерева. 2018. № 4. С. 108–116. https://doi.org/10.31363/2313-7053-2018-4-108-116
  7. Семенова Н. В. Информированное согласие и границы автономии в клинических исследованиях с участием уязвимых групп пациентов // Медицинская этика. 2018. Т. 6, № 1. С. 63–65.
  8. Белялетдинов Р. Р., Гребенщикова Е. Г., Киященко Л. П., Попова О. В., Тищенко П. Д., Юдин Б. Г. Социогуманитарное обеспечение проектов персонализированной медицины: философский аспект // Знание. Понимание. Умение. 2014. № 4. С. 12–26.
  9. Henderson G. E., Easter M. M., Zimmer C., King N. M. P., Davis A. M., Rothschild B. B., Churchill L. R., Wilfond B. S., Nelson D. K. Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials // Social Science & Medicine. 2006. Vol. 62, № 1. P. 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.022
  10. Jansen L. A., Mahadevan D., Appelbaum P. S., Klein W. M. P., Weinstein N. D., Mori M., Daffe R., Sulmasy D. P. Dispositional optimism and therapeutic expectations in early-phase oncology trials // Cancer. 2016. Vol. 122, № 8. P. 1238–1246. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29908
  11. Hernandez A., Banos J.-E., Llop C., Farre M. The defi nition of placebo in the informed consent forms of clinical trials // PloS one. 2014. Vol. 9, № 11. P. e113654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113654
  12. Коваль Е. А., Мартынова М. Д., Жадунова Н. В. Информированное согласие в эпоху больших данных: необходимость нормативного обновления // Этическая мысль. 2020. Т. 20, № 2. С. 115–131. https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2020-20-2-115-131
  13. Сидорова Т. А., Жичина Е. Ю. Биоэтическое содержание информированного добровольного согласия // Медицинское право: теория и практика. 2016. Т. 2, № 1 (3). С. 239–244.
  14. Silverman H. J., Luce J. M., Lanken P. N., Morris A. H., Harabin A. L., Oldmixon C. F., Thompson B. T., Bernard G. R. Recommendations for informed consent forms for critical care clinical trials // Critical care medicine. 2005. Vol. 33, № 4. P. 867–882. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000159201.08203.10
  15. Haas M. A., Teare H., Prictor M., Ceregra G., Vidgen M. E., Bunker D., Kaye J., Boughtwood T. ‘CTRL’: An online, Dynamic Consent and participant engagement platform working towards solving the complexities of consent in genomic research // European Journal of Human Genetics. 2021. Vol. 29, № 4. P. 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00782-w
  16. Брызгалина Е. В. Биоэтика пандемии: абрис проблемного поля // Человек. 2020. Т. 31, № 4. С. 41–56. https://doi.org/10.31857/S023620070010930-0

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).