Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: Cautious pragmatism

Raymond De Vries, Kerry A. Ryan, Aimee Stanczyk, Paul S. Appelbaum, Laura Damschroder, David S Knopman, Scott Y H Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To describe how members of the older general public deliberate with one another in finding solutions to the dilemma of involving persons with decisional incapacity in dementia research. Design, setting, and participants: One hundred sixty persons age 50 years and older who participated in an all-day deliberative democracy session on the ethics of surrogate consent for dementia research. The deliberative democracy day consisted of both extensive, interactive education with experts in clinical research and ethics, as well as small group deliberations. Measurements: Audiotaped small group deliberations were transcribed and analyzed and the main thematic elements were coded. Results: During deliberation, participants acknowledged the limitations of advanced research directives and discussed ways to improve their use. Although there was consensus about the necessity of surrogate consent, the participants recognized potential pitfalls and looked for ways to safeguard the process. Participants supporting surrogate consent for research emphasized societal and individual benefits, the importance of assent, and trust in surrogates and the oversight system. Other participants felt that the high risk of some research scenarios was not sufficiently offset by benefits to patients or society. Conclusions: Members of the older general public are able to make use of in-depth education and peer deliberation to provide reasoned and informed opinions on the ethical use of surrogate consent for dementia research. The public's approach to surrogate consent is one of cautious pragmatism: an overall trust in science and future surrogates with awareness of the potential pitfalls, suggesting that their trust cannot be taken for granted.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)364-372
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2013

Fingerprint

Dementia
Research
Democracy
Clinical Ethics
Research Ethics
Education
Ethics
Consensus

Keywords

  • Deliberative democracy
  • Dementia
  • Surrogate consent

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology

Cite this

De Vries, R., Ryan, K. A., Stanczyk, A., Appelbaum, P. S., Damschroder, L., Knopman, D. S., & Kim, S. Y. H. (2013). Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: Cautious pragmatism. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(4), 364-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.010

Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research : Cautious pragmatism. / De Vries, Raymond; Ryan, Kerry A.; Stanczyk, Aimee; Appelbaum, Paul S.; Damschroder, Laura; Knopman, David S; Kim, Scott Y H.

In: American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, Vol. 21, No. 4, 04.2013, p. 364-372.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

De Vries, R, Ryan, KA, Stanczyk, A, Appelbaum, PS, Damschroder, L, Knopman, DS & Kim, SYH 2013, 'Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: Cautious pragmatism', American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 364-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.010
De Vries, Raymond ; Ryan, Kerry A. ; Stanczyk, Aimee ; Appelbaum, Paul S. ; Damschroder, Laura ; Knopman, David S ; Kim, Scott Y H. / Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research : Cautious pragmatism. In: American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2013 ; Vol. 21, No. 4. pp. 364-372.
@article{803ef1a8872c4a558fecd6d9175a4e4a,
title = "Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: Cautious pragmatism",
abstract = "Objectives: To describe how members of the older general public deliberate with one another in finding solutions to the dilemma of involving persons with decisional incapacity in dementia research. Design, setting, and participants: One hundred sixty persons age 50 years and older who participated in an all-day deliberative democracy session on the ethics of surrogate consent for dementia research. The deliberative democracy day consisted of both extensive, interactive education with experts in clinical research and ethics, as well as small group deliberations. Measurements: Audiotaped small group deliberations were transcribed and analyzed and the main thematic elements were coded. Results: During deliberation, participants acknowledged the limitations of advanced research directives and discussed ways to improve their use. Although there was consensus about the necessity of surrogate consent, the participants recognized potential pitfalls and looked for ways to safeguard the process. Participants supporting surrogate consent for research emphasized societal and individual benefits, the importance of assent, and trust in surrogates and the oversight system. Other participants felt that the high risk of some research scenarios was not sufficiently offset by benefits to patients or society. Conclusions: Members of the older general public are able to make use of in-depth education and peer deliberation to provide reasoned and informed opinions on the ethical use of surrogate consent for dementia research. The public's approach to surrogate consent is one of cautious pragmatism: an overall trust in science and future surrogates with awareness of the potential pitfalls, suggesting that their trust cannot be taken for granted.",
keywords = "Deliberative democracy, Dementia, Surrogate consent",
author = "{De Vries}, Raymond and Ryan, {Kerry A.} and Aimee Stanczyk and Appelbaum, {Paul S.} and Laura Damschroder and Knopman, {David S} and Kim, {Scott Y H}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "364--372",
journal = "American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry",
issn = "1064-7481",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research

T2 - Cautious pragmatism

AU - De Vries, Raymond

AU - Ryan, Kerry A.

AU - Stanczyk, Aimee

AU - Appelbaum, Paul S.

AU - Damschroder, Laura

AU - Knopman, David S

AU - Kim, Scott Y H

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - Objectives: To describe how members of the older general public deliberate with one another in finding solutions to the dilemma of involving persons with decisional incapacity in dementia research. Design, setting, and participants: One hundred sixty persons age 50 years and older who participated in an all-day deliberative democracy session on the ethics of surrogate consent for dementia research. The deliberative democracy day consisted of both extensive, interactive education with experts in clinical research and ethics, as well as small group deliberations. Measurements: Audiotaped small group deliberations were transcribed and analyzed and the main thematic elements were coded. Results: During deliberation, participants acknowledged the limitations of advanced research directives and discussed ways to improve their use. Although there was consensus about the necessity of surrogate consent, the participants recognized potential pitfalls and looked for ways to safeguard the process. Participants supporting surrogate consent for research emphasized societal and individual benefits, the importance of assent, and trust in surrogates and the oversight system. Other participants felt that the high risk of some research scenarios was not sufficiently offset by benefits to patients or society. Conclusions: Members of the older general public are able to make use of in-depth education and peer deliberation to provide reasoned and informed opinions on the ethical use of surrogate consent for dementia research. The public's approach to surrogate consent is one of cautious pragmatism: an overall trust in science and future surrogates with awareness of the potential pitfalls, suggesting that their trust cannot be taken for granted.

AB - Objectives: To describe how members of the older general public deliberate with one another in finding solutions to the dilemma of involving persons with decisional incapacity in dementia research. Design, setting, and participants: One hundred sixty persons age 50 years and older who participated in an all-day deliberative democracy session on the ethics of surrogate consent for dementia research. The deliberative democracy day consisted of both extensive, interactive education with experts in clinical research and ethics, as well as small group deliberations. Measurements: Audiotaped small group deliberations were transcribed and analyzed and the main thematic elements were coded. Results: During deliberation, participants acknowledged the limitations of advanced research directives and discussed ways to improve their use. Although there was consensus about the necessity of surrogate consent, the participants recognized potential pitfalls and looked for ways to safeguard the process. Participants supporting surrogate consent for research emphasized societal and individual benefits, the importance of assent, and trust in surrogates and the oversight system. Other participants felt that the high risk of some research scenarios was not sufficiently offset by benefits to patients or society. Conclusions: Members of the older general public are able to make use of in-depth education and peer deliberation to provide reasoned and informed opinions on the ethical use of surrogate consent for dementia research. The public's approach to surrogate consent is one of cautious pragmatism: an overall trust in science and future surrogates with awareness of the potential pitfalls, suggesting that their trust cannot be taken for granted.

KW - Deliberative democracy

KW - Dementia

KW - Surrogate consent

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880096247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880096247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 23498383

AN - SCOPUS:84880096247

VL - 21

SP - 364

EP - 372

JO - American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

JF - American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

SN - 1064-7481

IS - 4

ER -