Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy

ISSN 1819-7671 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1948 (Online)


Full text:
(downloads: 23)
Language: 
Russian
Heading: 
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
174:614.253
EDN: 
JSQXAG

Phenomenon of a therapeutic misconception: Bioethical aspect

Autors: 
Nartova Maria Andreevna, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov
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.

Reference: 
  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). Available at: https:// www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involvinghuman-subjects/ (accessed June 21, 2023).
  3. Jefford M., Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. The Lancet Oncology, 2008, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 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, no. 3–4, pp. 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, pp. 836–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289012
  6. Semyenova N. V., Yanushko M. G., Yakovleva Yu. A. Ethical issues of the informed consent procedure in schizophrenia patients in view of cognitive dysfunction. Obozreniye psikhiatrii i meditsinskoy psikhologii imeni V. M. Bekhtereva [V. M. Bekhterev review of psychiatry and medical psychology], 2018, no. 4, pp. 108–116 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.31363/2313-7053-2018-4-108-116
  7. Semenova N. V. Informed consent and borders of autonomy in clinical trials with participation of vulnerable groups of patients. Meditsinskaya etika [Medical ethics], 2018, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 63–65 (in Russian).
  8. Belyaletdinov R. R., Grebenshchikova E. G., Kiyashchenko L. P., Popova O. V., Tishchenko P. D., Yudin B. G. Socio-humanitarian support for projects in personalized medicine: The philosophical aspect. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie [Knowledge. Understanding. Skill], 2014, no. 1, pp. 12–26 (in Russian).
  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, no. 1, pp. 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, no. 8, pp. 1238–1246. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29908
  11. Hernandez A., Banos J.-E., Llop C., Farre M. The definition of placebo in the informed consent forms of clinical trials. PloS one, 2014, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. e113654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113654
  12. Koval E. A., Martynova E. A., Zhadunova M. D. Informed consent form in the big data era: the need for regulatory update. Eticheskaya mysl [Ethical Thought], 2020, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 115–131 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2020-20-2-115-131
  13. Sidorova T. A., Zhichina E. Yu. Bioethical content of informed consent form. Meditsinskoye pravo: teoriya i practika [Medical Law: Theory and Practice], 2016, vol. 2, no. 1 (3), pp. 239–244 (in Russian).
  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, no. 4, pp. 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, no. 4, pp. 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-00782-w
  16. Bryzgalina E. V. Bioethics of pandemia: Mapping the problem area. Chelovek [The Human Being], 2020, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 41–56 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S023620070010930-0
Received: 
18.09.2023
Accepted: 
13.11.2023
Published: 
25.12.2023