One of my several strong reactions to this story was about the informed consent issue. Assuming that Corkin’s analysis of H. M.’s disability was correct then how could they assume that H.M. was competent to give consent?
Researcher: You agreed to the brain implant stimulation procedure. Henry M.: Really? I don’t remember. Researcher: Here is your signature. Henry M.: Really? I don’t remember signing that paper. Researcher: Trust me. Henry M.: Now who are you again? Ken PS- Yeah I know that 1992 was back in the 20th Century when dinosaur roamed the planet but to quote MP: "Insert WTF? here" > On Aug 11, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > > The "Inside Higher Ed" website now has an article on the Corkin > affair, summarizing some of the key points: > https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/11/new-book-criticizing-well-known-professor-neuroscience-who-died-year-sparks-ire-her > > For the view from MIT, here is a link to the university's "MIT > News" website: > http://news.mit.edu/2016/faculty-defend-suzanne-corkin-0809 > Not surprisingly, it is supportive of Corkin and dismissive of > Luke Dittrich whose article and book are at the center of the > controversy. For Dittrich's response to the MIT article -- > more specifically to James DiCarlo's objections -- see: > https://medium.com/@lukedittrich/questions-answers-about-patient-h-m-ae4ddd33ed9c#.lt6hpfnib > > Perhaps the most troubling of the situations that Dittrich > describes is the issue of "informed consent" and how it > was obtained. Quoting from Dittrich's response: > > |The questions surrounding informed consent in Henry's > |case are among the most important questions I raise, > |in both the book and the article. From at least 1981 until 1992, > |according to information I received from Corkin herself, > |Henry was the only person signing his informed consent > |forms when he visited MIT's Clinical Research Center, > |where he would reside as a live-in test subject for as long > |as a month at a time. > > Insert WTF!? here. > > |Corkin ultimately recognized that Henry's profound amnesia > |might make it hard to argue that the experiments she and > |her colleagues were conducting on Henry were properly > |consented. As she wrote in a statement that she provided > |to me, "his difficulty in retaining new information raised the > |nagging question of how we obtained consent." > > It is somewhat amazing that it only took 11 years for the researcher > to realize that a person who could not remember signing an > informed consent form might not be able to be able to give informed > consent. Of course, the story doesn't stop there because the > next question is who would be the appropriate to provide > informed consent for the research that HM participated in. > And that is where the plot thickens and the interested reader > will find out for him/herself what happened and ask, perhaps, > ask why? > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > P.S. If one believes that HM was not capable of giving informed > consent, then what should one do with the data and the publications > from the 11 year period where he was the only one giving consent? > > > > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=49182 or send a blank email to leave-49182-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
