Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics in Palliative Care Research

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Textbook of Palliative Care

Abstract

Today, there is near universal consensus on Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) as the preferred approach to medical practice. In palliative care, however, a strong evidence base is lacking in many respects which could result in less than optimal care being provided to patients. Establishing a solid evidence base requires much research to be conducted in palliative care. Such research in palliative care faces both empirical and ethical challenges. In this chapter we focus on several ethical issues and challenges that are relevant to palliative care research. Many legal and ethical frameworks for dealing with research ethical issues, but this chapter examines how these general frameworks apply more specifically to the domain of palliative care research. We will discuss the key issue of vulnerability in palliative care research. Other issues that will be touched upon are: (1) respect for research participants; (2) the need for independent review; (3) the requirement of social and/or scientific value; (4) issues related to informed consent; (5) challenges regarding scientific validity; (6) favourable risk-benefit ratio; and (7) fair participant selection. In touching upon these issues, most ethical challenges for palliative care research are examined. The chapter aims to show that although many ethical challenges may exist when conducting palliative care research, these challenges should in no way be deemed insurmountable. Research in palliative care is both needed and possible, provided sufficient attention is given to possible ethical sensibilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abernethy AP, Capell WH, Aziz NM, Ritchie C, Prince-Paul M, Bennet RE, et al. Ethical conduct of palliative care research: enhancing communication between investigators and institutional review boards. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;48(6):1211–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal M, Grady C, Fairclough DL, Meropol NJ, Maynard K, Emanuel EJ. Patients’ decision-making process regarding participation in phase I oncology research. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(27):4479–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aoun SM, Kristjanson LJ. Challenging the framework for evidence in palliative care research. Palliat Med. 2005;19(6):461–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aoun SM, Nekolaichuk C. Improving the evidence base in palliative care to inform practice and policy: thinking outside the box. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;48(6):1222–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum PS, Roth LH. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1982;5:319–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beller EM, van Driel ML, McGregor L, Truong S, Mitchell G. Palliative pharmacological sedation for terminally ill adults (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;1:1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernabe RDLC, van Thiel GJMW, van Delden JJM. What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics? BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(23):1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the gold standard – lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2175–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bouça-Machado R, Rosário M, Alarcão J, Correia-Guedes L, Abreu D, Ferreira JJ. Clinical trials in palliative care: a systematic review of their methodological characteristics and of the quality of their reporting. BMC Palliat Care. 2017;16(10):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken-Roche D, Bell E, Macdonald ME, Racine E. The concept of “vulnerability” in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(8):1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casarett DJ, Karlawish JHT. Are special ethical guidelines needed for palliative care research? J Pain Symptom Manag. 2000;20(2):130–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25): 1887–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. 4th ed. Geneva; 2016. Available at https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf.

  • Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283(20): 2701–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grady C. Payment of clinical research subjects. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2005;115(7):1681–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande GE, Todd CJ. Why are trials in palliative care so difficult? Palliat Med. 2000;14:69–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman J, Mackenzie FJ. The randomized controlled trial: gold standard, or merely standard? Perspect Biol Med. 2005;48(4):516–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM, Easter MM, Grady C, Joffe S, et al. Clinical trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Med. 2007;4(11):1735–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickman SE, Cartwright JC, Nelson CA, Knafl K. Compassion and vigilance: investigators’ strategies to manage ethical concerns in palliative and end-of-life research. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(8):880–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Higginson IJ. Evidence based palliative care: there is some evidence – and there needs to be more. Br Med J. 1999;319:462–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Higginson IJ. Research challenges in palliative and end of life care. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2016;6(1):2–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson P, Aranda S, Kristjanson LJ, Quinn K. Minimising gate-keeping in palliative care research. Eur J Palliat Care. 2005;12(4):165–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012 (1785).

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlawish JHT. Measuring decision-making capacity in cognitively impaired individuals. Neurosignals. 2008;16(1):91–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kars MC, van Thiel GJMW, van der Graaf R, Moors M, de Graeff A, van Delden JJM. A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research. Palliat Med. 2016;30(6):533–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley AS, McGarry K, Fahle S, Marshall SM, Du Q, Skinner JS. Out-of-Pocket Spending in the Last Five Years of Life. National Bureau of Economic Research Bulletin on Aging and Health. 2010;2:3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Kristjanson LJ. Human research ethics committees: issues in palliative care research. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2003;9(1):13–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levine C, Faden RR, Grady C, Hammerschmidt D, Eckenwiler L, Sugarman J. The limitations of “Vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. Am J Bioeth. 2004;4(3):44–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ling J, Rees E, Hardy J. What influences participation in clinical trials in palliative care in a cancer centre? Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:621–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin R. On paying money to research subjects: “due” and “undue” inducements. IRB. 1981;3(5):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller FG, Joffe S. Benefit in phase 1 oncology trials: therapeutic misconception or reasonable treatment option? Clinical Trials: Journal of the Society for Clinical Trials. 2008;5(6):617–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickel PJ. Vulnerable populations in research: the case of the seriously ill. Theor Med Bioeth. 2006;27(3): 245–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nueberger J, Guthrie C, Aaronovitch D, Hameed K, Bonser T, Pentregarth H, et al. More care, less pathway: a review of the liverpool care pathway. 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212450/Liverpool_Care_Pathway.pdf.

  • de Raeve L. Ethical issues in palliative care research. Palliat Med. 1994;8(4):298–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rink GC, van den Bos GA, Kleijnen J, de Haes HJ, Schadé E, Veenhof CH. Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(4):1697–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman DJ. Ethics and human experimentation. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1195–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett DL. Evidence based medicine. Semin Perinatol. 1997;21(1):3–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey K, Savulescu J, Aranda S, Schofield P. Clinician gate-keeping in clinical research is not ethically defensible: an analysis. J Med Ethics. 2010;36:363–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sterckx S, Raus K, Mortier F. Continuous sedation at the end of life: ethical, clinical and legal perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. (Bioethics and Law).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tieman J, Sladek R, Currow D. Changes in the quantity and level of evidence of palliative and hospice care literature: the last century. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35): 5679–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Visser C, Hadley G, Wee B. Reality of evidence-based practice in palliative care. Cancer Biol Med. 2015;12(3):193–200.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vollman J, Winau R. Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code. Br Med J. 1996;313:1445–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wee B, Hadley G, Derry S. How useful are systematic reviews for informing palliative care practice? Survey of 25 Cochrane systematic reviews. BMC Palliat Care. 2008;7:13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler D. A pragmatic analysis of vulnerability. Bioethics. 2017;31(7):515–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer A. Exploitation in Clinical Research. In: Emanuel EJ, editor. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 201–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research – “Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;297(4):403–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • White C, Hardy J. What do palliative care patients and their relatives think about research in palliative care? – A systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:905–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White C, Gilshenan K, Hardy J. A survey of the views of palliative care healthcare professionals towards referring cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials in palliative care. Support Care Cancer. 2008;16:1397–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams EP, Walter JK. When Does the Amount We Pay Research Participants Become “Undue Influence”? J Am Med Assoc. 2015;17(12):1116–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. J Am Med Assoc. 2008;299(2):211–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Med Assoc. 2013;310(20):2191–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

    Kasper Raus

  2. Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Sigrid Sterckx

Authors
  1. Kasper Raus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sigrid Sterckx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kasper Raus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. HammondCare Learning and Research Centre, Greenwich Hospital, Greenwich, New South Wales, Australia

    Roderick Duncan MacLeod

  2. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB-UGent End-of-Life Care Research Grou Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Lieve Van den Block

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Raus, K., Sterckx, S. (2018). Ethics in Palliative Care Research. In: MacLeod, R., Van den Block, L. (eds) Textbook of Palliative Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31738-0_110-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31738-0_110-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31738-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31738-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation