Informed Consent: Promise, Pledge, Contract, or Platitude? Presented by: Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, The Weinberg Group Inc.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Role of the IRB An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a review committee established to help protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Advertisements

Data Monitoring Models and Adaptive Designs: Some Regulatory Experiences Sue-Jane Wang, Ph.D. Associate Director for Adaptive Design and Pharmacogenomics,
Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, Life Sciences INFORMED CONSENT: Pledge, Promise, Contract or Platitude? Key Aspects of Informed Consent for the Regulatory.
Recently Issued OHRP Documents: Guidance on Subject Withdrawal and Draft Revised FWA Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections October.
Food & Drug Law Institute Annual Conference Washington, D.C. April 22, 2009 Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President Drug Safety –Perspectives on Industry’s.
Columbia University IRB IRB 101 September 21, 2005 George Gasparis, Executive Director, CU IRB Asst. V.P. and Sr. Asst. Dean for Research Ethics.
CUMC IRB Investigator Meeting Special IND/IDE Considerations: Emergency Use of Investigational Product Compassionate Use & Emergency Research July 21,
FOUNDATIONS OF NURSING RESEARCH Sixth Edition CHAPTER Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Foundations of Nursing Research,
Ethical Principles of Human Subjects Protection
SARA IMG Event Johannesburg 10 April 2014 Changes in South African Immigration Law.
Overview of FDA Regulation of Devices & Diagnostics
State Regulation of Clinical Trials 5th National Conference on Managing Legal Risks in Structuring and Conducting Clinical Trials American Conference Institute.
Good Clinical Practice GCP
FDA Regulatory Considerations in Launching Products Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, Life Sciences WITI (Women In Technology International) San Diego.
Educational Research and the VCOM Institutional Review Board
A History of Human Research Protections and Institutional Review Boards Roger L. Bertholf, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pathology Chair, University of.
FDA Enforcement Conference Philadelphia May 2010 Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President American Conference Institute.
International Human Subject Research Legal and Ethical Considerations for Investigators Theresa J. Colecchia, Esq. Associate General Counsel May 8, 2006.
Regulatory Authority Governing Clinical Trials Anthony J. Minisi, MD Director, Cardiology Fellowship Program.
Stakeholders In Clinical Research Government and Regulatory Bodies Professor Phil Warner.
AMERICAN CONFERENCE INSTITUTE 12 th National Conference On Managing Legal Risks And Conducting Clinical Trials New York City February 24, 2010 Michael.
Clinical Trial Registries: Panacea or Pablum?? Presented by: Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, The Weinberg Group Inc.
M. ANGELA JIMENEZ 1 UNIT 5. REGULATION OF EXTERNAL AUDIT IFAC AND E.C.
Primary Care and Community Outreach Research VCOM Institutional Review Board Jim Mahaney, PhD Associate Dean for Biomedical Affairs, Virginia Campus Past.
KEY CURRENT ISSUES IN EUROPEAN REGULATON Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, Life Sciences Pharmaceutical Education Associates From Pipeline to Product:
The International Pharmaceutical Compliance Summit on Medical Affairs, Clinical Trials, Safety and Publication Philadelphia, Pennsylvania March 31, 2005.
1 Ethics For the Employee Benefits Agent.  Ethics – defined as a principle of right or good conduct; a system of moral principles or values; the rules.
November 4, 2009 Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President SDRAN/OCRA Marketing Applications Conference.
Planned Emergency Research Exception from Informed Consent Requirements September 2007.
HUMAN RESEARCH HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. Objectives Identify the history events that lead to the development of principles, regulations, and guidance.
© 2009 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Clinical Research.
Questions: AAHRPP Evaluation Instrument for Use with Final Revised Accreditation Standards Presented by: C. Karen Jeans, MSN, CCRN, CIP COACH Program Analyst,
RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH MARGARITA M. CARDONA DIRECTOR OF SPONSORED RESEARCH Institutional Review Board.
Legal & Ethical Issues. Objectives At the completion of this session the participant will be able to: ◦ Describe the ethical principles associated with.
Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in the following PowerPoint slides are those of the individual presenter and should not be attributed to Drug.
CLINICAL RESEARCH COMPLIANCE Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, Life Sciences PharmaCongress Washington, D.C. Thursday, November 8, 2007.
Legal and Regulatory Concerns in the Sourcing of FDA-Regulated Products, Components & Services Part 2 – The Contract and Related Legal Strategies Michael.
Cardiac Lunch Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President.
"What You Need to Know Before Beginning Your Clinical Trial" FDA Breakfast Briefing October 23, 2002 FDA Counsel.com.
Managing Sponsor/Investigator Relationships 5 th National Conference on Managing Legal Risks in Structuring and Conducting Clinical Trials American Conference.
Click to add Presentation Title Arial 32, 5 line max title space line 3, title space line 4, title space line 5 Presenter Title Organization Insert your.
FDLI 49 th Annual Conference Washington, D.C. April 7, 2006 THE FUTURE OF COMPLIANCE GOVERNANCE Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, Life Sciences.
What Institutional Researchers Should Know about the IRB Susan Thompson Senior Research Analyst Office of Institutional Research Presented at the Texas.
Inside Clinical Trials ® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. What is a clinical trial? ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FDA Regulatory Considerations for the Biomedical Companies Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, Life Sciences LARTA NIH-CAP COMMERCIALIZATION WORKSHOP.
1 Legislative Issues: Pediatric Research & Clinical Trials Registries/Databases 23 – 26 September 2007 Hynes Convention Center Boston Michael A. Swit,
Welcome New IRB Member! This brief presentation covers: Your Role in the IRB: What to Know The IRB Review Process Resources Human Research Protections.
Conducting Research at Lincoln IRB/HRPP Policies, Procedures & Good Clinical Practices B Kanna MD, MPH, FACP Associate Program Director of Internal Medicine.
FDA Counsel.com 1 The Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of “MDUFMA” Overview of Key Provisions Michael A. Swit, Esq. Law Offices of.
Chapter 5 Ethical Concerns in Research. Historical Perspective on Ethics Nazi Experimentation in WWII –“medical experiments” –Nuremberg War Crime Trials.
Pediatric Research Ethics and the Research Subject Advocate Tomas Jose Silber, MD, MASS RSA and Director, Office of Ethics, CNMC Professor of Pediatrics,
Second Annual Medical Research Summit March 25, 2002 Washington, D.C.
Professional Conduct, Independence, and Quality Control
Medical Research in Times of Bioterrorism - OHRP’s Perspective Michael A. Carome, M.D. Associate Director for Regulatory Affairs Office for Human Research.
Legal Responsibilities for Studies Conducted or Supported by HHS Michael A. Carome, M.D. Associate Director for Regulatory Affairs Office for Human Research.
0 Ethics Lecture Research. ACADEMY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY Disclosures  The speaker has no financial interest in the subject matter of this.
EXCEPTION FROM INFORMED CONSENT IN CPR DEVICE TRIALS: PROTECTION OF PATIENTS’ RIGHTS Circulatory System Devices Panel Meeting September 21, 2004 Elisa.
Ethics in Research A class discussion. What is Ethics in Research? and Why is it Important?
Introduction to Business © Thomson South-Western ChapterChapter Social Responsibility of Business and Government Social Responsibility Government.
GCP (GOOD CLINICAL PRACTISE)
© 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Objective 2.05 Understand responsible actions for conducting business. SLIDE 1 Objective 2.00 Understand.
Making Comments Count for High-Impact Regulations and Guidelines in Canada, EU, Japan, and US Chairperson: Amy N. Grant Director, Regulatory Strategy &
Track 11 Symposium 27 June :30 – 3:00 PM
Biosimilars The New U.S. Pathway RAPS Annual Conference
1 Topic Title First slide 2 line 3 line 4 line
Presenter Name Title Organization.
Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in the following PowerPoint slides are those of the individual presenter and should not be attributed to Drug.
1 Session Title 2 line 3 line 4 line
1 Topic Title First slide 2 line 3 line 4 line
Research, Experimentation, & Clinical Trials
Presentation transcript:

Informed Consent: Promise, Pledge, Contract, or Platitude? Presented by: Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, The Weinberg Group Inc.

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed in the following PowerPoint slides are those of the individual presenter and should not be attributed to Drug Information Association, Inc. (“DIA”), its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, members, chapters, councils, Special Interest Area Communities or affiliates, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated. These PowerPoint slides are the intellectual property of the individual presenter and are protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America and other countries. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Drug Information Association, DIA and DIA logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of Drug Information Association Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. These slides support an oral briefing and may not be relied upon solely on their own to support any conclusion of law or fact. 2

3 Historical Background

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC The Nuremberg Code (1947) First modern ethical code requiring – Voluntary consent – Benefits outweigh risks – Ability of the subject to terminate participation

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Declaration of Helsinki (1964) Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects Adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, 1964; revised in Tokyo, 1975; Venice, 1983; Hong Kong, 1989; South Africa, 1996;Edinburgh 2000; Note of clarification on paragraph 29; Washington 2002

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Helsinki Declaration … “Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society”

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Beecher Article (1966) “Ethics and clinical research” — Henry K. Beecher, New England Journal of Medicine 274 (1966): –22 published medical studies presenting risk to subjects without their knowledge or approval –Published in some of the most prestigious journals and conducted at some of the most acclaimed institutions by some of the most highly regarded researchers

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Where the Burden Lies “The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment.” –Principle 1, The Nuremberg Code “When obtaining informed consent for a research project, the doctor should be particularly cautious if the subject is in a dependent relationship to him or her, or under duress.” –The Declaration of Helsinki

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Where the Burden Lies … “In that case, the informed consent should be obtained by a doctor who is not engaged in the investigation and who is completely independent of this relationship.”

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Beecher’s Paradox The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. –Nuremberg True informed consent is probably an unattainable goal. –Beecher

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC The Belmont Report 1974 – The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1979 – Commission Report – “Belmont” –Validates IRB role as a key aspect of subject protection 1981 – Federal Regulations Revised –“Common Rule” – basically across whole fed. govt. –FDA – some exceptions, minor in nature

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Where the Regulations Lie HHS – if supported by federal funding – 45 CFR 116. FDA – 21 CFR Part 50 Differences –FDA, but not HHS, provides for an exception from the informed consent requirements in emergency situations. The provision is based on the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, but may be used in investigations involving drugs, devices, and other FDA regulated products in situations described in ß

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Differences – FDA vs. HHS HHS provides for waiving or altering elements of informed consent under certain conditions. FDA has no such provision because the types of studies which would qualify for such waivers are either not regulated by FDA or are covered by the emergency treatment provisions (§ 50.23) FDA explicitly requires that subjects be informed that FDA may inspect the records of the study because FDA may occasionally examine a subject's medical records when they pertain to the study. While HHS has the right to inspect records of studies it funds, it does not impose that same informed consent requirement.

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Differences – FDA v. HHS … FDA explicitly requires that consent forms be dated as well as signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. The HHS regulations do not explicitly require consent forms to be dated.

15 The Law of Informed Consent – Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Promise, Pledge or Platitude?

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Treatment vs. Research – Key Distinction Law of Informed Consent – must remember that what governs medical treatment is not always same as what governs research Treatment –Doctor – arguably -- is a fiduciary – owes duty to protect patient –Traditional view – unconsented treatment = battery –Causation – Not disclosed Injured Reasonable Patient would want to know Reasonable Patient would have refused the treatment – HARD PART

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC How Research Differs from Treatment Goals – treatment vs. developing generalizable knowledge How Overseen: –Treatment – doctor supplies expertise –Research – highly regulated by sources other than the doctor – protocol and government regulation e.g., if sponsor concludes treatment is ineffective, must stop research Law – state (treatment) vs. federal (research) – some exceptions

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Battery Problem – any failure could be alleged to be a battery, which is an intentional tort (technically); due to this, courts do not favor it as a remedy Will occur: –Complete lack of consent –Procedure given differed from that consented –“Ghost Surgery” – undisclosed replacement surgeon

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Is the I.C. a Contract Legally Enforceable by the Subject? Basic contract law –Parties in privity – i.e., two make a deal –Legal subject –Offer –Acceptance –Consideration Problem – lack of privity – sponsor may provide the form, but it is obtained by P.I. from the subject – no privity

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC But, People (Alan Milstein) Still Argue Contracts Suthers & Abney Cases –GNDF trials – discontinued by Amgen as showing no benefit – thus, required under IND rules –Plaintiffs – you owe us the drug under normal contracts theory and the doctrine of “promissory estoppel” – also a contracts theory Clear promise Detrimental reliance by promisee Damages by promisee

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Suthers and Abney Decisions No contract –Amgen not a party to I.C., nor was the P.I. an agent of Amgen that could bind Amgen via the I.C.; rather they were “independent contractors” Look at control over the P.I.’s work –Here the protocol drafted by the P.I. No promissory estoppel –Unable to show Amgen promised continued access

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Fiduciary? Suthers & Abney – also asserted that the Amgen was a fiduciary; not found by court –Amgen did not set up the clinical initially; no unique duty owed to subjects or proof that Amgen’s role was done for the benefit on the patients Note: court suggested that the parties to be bound by contract via the I.C. were the P.I. and the universities where P.I. worked

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC Problems with Fiduciary Theory Goal of research – generalizable knowledge Subject is not the prime beneficiary of research – rather it is the public at large P.I. and sponsor both have less control over the way research is done

24 Call, , fax or write: Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President The Weinberg Group Inc. 336 North Coast Hwy. 101 Suite C Encinitas, CA Phone Fax Cell Questions?

46 th Annual Meeting Washington, DC About your speaker… Michael A. Swit, Esq., is a Vice President at THE WEINBERG GROUP, where he develops and ensures the execution of a broad array of regulatory and other services to drug and biologics clients seeking to market products in the United States. His expertise includes FDA development strategies, compliance and enforcement initiatives, recalls and crisis management, submissions and related traditional FDA regulatory activities, labeling and advertising, and clinical research efforts. Mr. Swit has been addressing critical FDA legal and regulatory issues since His multi-faceted experience includes serving for three and a half years as corporate vice president, general counsel and secretary of Par Pharmaceutical, a prominent, publicly-traded, generic drug company and, thus, he brings an industry and commercial perspective to his work with FDA-regulated companies. Mr. Swit then served for over four years as CEO of FDANews.com, a premier publisher of FDA regulatory newsletters and other specialty information products for the FDA-regulated community. His private FDA regulatory law practice has included service as Special Counsel in the FDA Law Practice Group in the San Diego office of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe and with the Food & Drug Law practice at McKenna & Cuneo, both in the firm’s Washington office and later in San Diego. He first practiced FDA regulatory law with the D.C. office of Burditt & Radzius. Mr. Swit has taught and written on a wide variety of subjects relating to FDA law, regulation and related commercial activities, including, since 1989, co-directing a three-day intensive course on the generic drug approval process and editing a guide to the generic drug approval process, Getting Your Generic Drug Approved. A former member of the Food & Drug Law Journal Editorial Board, he also has been a prominent speaker at numerous conferences sponsored by such organizations as RAPS, FDLI, and DIA. A magna cum laude graduate of Bowdoin College, he received his law degree from Emory University Law School and is a member of the California, D.C. and Virginia bars.