>In a related area...
>
> Last Thursday's NYTimes carried an article about a study of the
>effectiveness of chilling the body on treatment of head trauma cases. About
>half of the article was about the special form of consent used in the study.
>Because it was not possible to get consent in advance (not knowing who would
>suffer head trauma) nor from relatives quickly enough after the trauma to be
>of help to the study, consent followed a new rule that has apparently been
>in place for several years. The rule allows assumption of consent (my words,
>not theirs...) on two conditions. First, the nature of the study and the
>assumption of consent must be communicated to "the community", and second,
>the relatives must be permitted to withdraw the subject from the study
>immediately once they've learned of the participation. The article noted
>that only happened in one case.
>
> I'd never heard of this before (it wasn't discussed on TIPS and I
>just deleted my way right past it, I hope...), and neither had several
>others with whom I talked at MIToP last weekend. Most were curious about how
>you'd go about "informing the community" (a point that was raised in the
>article as well). Sure enough, Sunday evening a doctor appeared on one of my
>local television stations to "inform the community" about a study of heart
>attack victims that will take place in my area.
>
> Has this been common, and I'm only just now noticing it?
>
>Paul Smith
>Alverno College
>Milwaukee
Paul,
Not common but, in some circumstances (medical not behavioral)
informed consent may be waived. This has been in effect since 1996.
See http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/hsdc97-01.htm
Subject: Informed Consent Requirements in Emergency Research
George
--
George D. Goedel
Professor & Chairperson
Department of Psychology
Northern Kentucky University
Highland Hts., KY 41099-2000
(859) 572-5574
fax (859) 572-6085
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
