Table of Contents  
RESEARCH LETTER
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 150-151  

Informed Consent on Camera


Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Date of Submission03-May-2013
Date of Decision12-Jul-2013
Date of Acceptance20-Nov-2013
Date of Web Publication7-Apr-2014

Correspondence Address:
Smita Sontakke
201, Nirman Heritage Plot No. E 17, 18 Shrinath Sainagar, Near Omkar nagar, Nagpur - 440 027, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0976-500X.130066

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Sontakke S, Kinge P. Informed Consent on Camera. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2014;5:150-1

How to cite this URL:
Sontakke S, Kinge P. Informed Consent on Camera. J Pharmacol Pharmacother [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Dec 10];5:150-1. Available from: http://www.jpharmacol.com/text.asp?2014/5/2/150/130066

Sir,

Informed consent (IC) is one of the most important components of ethical research in human participants. Even though it is mandatory to obtain a freely given "written IC" from each study participant before he/she is enrolled in a clinical trial, which includes explaining pros and cons of participation, currently there is no objective measure to ensure that the same has been followed in letter and spirit. Often researchers do not obtain proper IC, because they just see it as a signature at the bottom of the form and not a partnership. [1] The gravity of the situation further increases in a scenario where majority of the research participants are not properly educated, they may lack understanding and comprehension and hesitate to ask questions even if they are not satisfied. [2]

With the aim of improving this situation, recently India's Drug Technical Advisory Board for clinical trials proposed that the investigator should make audio/video recording of the procedure of obtaining IC of the individual subject and maintain it for record. [3] The board after deliberations have agreed to the following amendment in Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics act.

"In sub-para (4) under the caption ''Informed Consent'', under para 2. Clinical trials, the following clause may be inserted: "An audio/video recording of the informed consent process of individual subject including procedure of providing information to the subject and his understood consent shall be maintained by the investigator for record." [3]

Such a step will help to verify that at the time of enrolling the participant in a clinical trial, he/she was well-informed about the positive and negative aspects of such participation.

This amendment in the process of IC made by the regulatory authorities appears to be interesting and it seems that this will certainly be useful in resolving various concerns that are currently raised about the IC process. On the contrary, certain issues may arise as a result of this amendment which needs to be considered.

First, video recording of the consent process involves identification of the participant. [4] This may be objectionable considering that maintaining confidentiality of research participants is one of the prerequisites of clinical research. It is essential to maintain the dignity and welfare of participants and there may be a possibility of stigma and other social problems if confidentiality is not maintained. But this can be resolved if confidentiality of records (audio/video) is properly maintained and they are available only to concerned authorities. Only audio recording of the IC process would have the advantage that it is difficult to identify people from voice recordings which would help in maintaining confidentiality of the participant but at the same time since it is easy to tamper with voice recordings authenticity of the evidence can be questionable. [5] Video recording has a clear advantage in this respect.

Second, sometimes even a video recording may not be able to identify whether the participant understood the research study or not. [4] Though the amendment states "understood consent," it is difficult to have any objective evidence for the same. The video recording may show that the participant has actually understood but even this can be based on what he/she has been told to speak in front of the camera, prior to the recording. This may be particularly applicable in scenarios, where majority of prospective research participants are poor, needy, and illiterate people who may be easily lured into clinical trials for meager incentives which may be more important for them than health and hence, they may be only interested in what monetary returns they are getting rather than knowing the details of the research process. Studies have reported that even after using various audio-visual aids to explain the research process to the participants majority of research participants who have given IC have not actually understood their rights as participants or the methods of their treatment allocation in the trial. [6] This indicates that simple audio/video recording of the IC process cannot be an evidence of an "understood consent." Hence, the method of obtaining an "understood consent" needs to be specified.

Thus, many issues may remain debatable, but it is certain that this new amendment will help to document the process of IC as it will provide direct evidence about how the clinical trial was actually presented to the potential participants. [4] This seems to be an interesting exercise which would to a certain extent help in restricting unethical practices in biomedical research. In spite of all pros and cons, this appears to be a crucial step which will be of great consequence as far as ethics in clinical research is concerned.

 
   References Top

1.Power L. Trial participants must be fully involved in design and approval of trials. BMJ 1998;316:1000-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, research involving individuals with questionable capacity to consent: Points to consider (November 2009). Available from: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/questionablecapacity.htm [Last accessed on 2013 Jul 30].  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), Minutes of the 61 st meeting of Drugs Technical Advisory Board held on 24 th July, 2012 in the committee room, FDA Bhavan, Kotla road, New Delhi - 110002. Available from: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/dtab%20dcc%20ind/Minutes%20of%20DTAB/Minutes%20of%2061 st %20DTAB%2024.07.2012.pdf [Last accessed on 2013 Jul 30].  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Rennie S. Video recording consent processes in India. Global bioethics - 2012 Available from: http://globalbioethics.blogspot.in/2012/11/video-recording-consent-processes-in.html [Last accessed on 2013 Jul 30].  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Manson S, International Electronic Evidence, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2008. Available from: http://www.biicl.org/files/3434_introduction_mason.pdf [Last accessed on 2013 Jul 30]  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Ryan R, Prictor M, McLaughlin KJ, Hill S. Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials (Review). Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Available from: http://www.update-software.com/pdf/CD003717.pdf [Last accessed on 2013 Jul 30].  Back to cited text no. 6
    



This article has been cited by
1 Compreensão do termo de consentimento em pesquisa clínica
Clarissa de Assumpção,Nínive da Silva Pinto,Luis Guillermo Coca Velarde,Osvaldo José Moreira do Nascimento,Beni Olej
Revista Bioética. 2016; 24(1): 184
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1304    
    Printed53    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded272    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal