Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Ethical issues in conduct of research in combat and disaster operations

John G. McManus, MD, MCR, Annette McClinton, RN, BSN, Melinda J. Morton, MD, MPH

Abstract


Background: The conduct of research in the combat and disaster environments shares many of the same fundamental principles and regulations that govern civilian biomedical research. However, Department of Defense research protocols stipulate additional requirements designed to preserve servicemembers’ informed consent rights, uphold ethical standards, and protect sensitive or classified information.The authors reviewed studies that have been approved for the conduct of research in current combat operations and also discuss their applicability in disaster settings.
Methods: This is a descriptive, retrospective study of protocols that have currently been approved for conduct of research in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Results: During the period of July 2005 through October 2007, 38 retrospective chart review protocols, seven prospective studies requiring consent or an alteration of the consent document and 12 prospective observational studies were submitted through the Deployed Research Committee in Iraq for review and approval at the Brooke Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB). A total of 55 protocols were approved by the IRB for implementation in the Iraq combat theater. Most of these protocols involved trauma care treatment. One prospective study investigating the effects of blast-concussive injuries on US Soldiers in Iraq requiring informed consent was reviewed and approved.
Conclusions: The conduct of military medical research has, and will make, significant and lasting contributions to the practice of both civilian and military medicine. Although policies and regulations to conduct research and release-associated findings often seem cumbersome and stringent, these added hurdles serve not only to ensure protection of the rights of human subjects during a time of potentially increased vulnerability, but also to protect the security interests of US troops. Many of these principles and practices are directly applicable in disaster research environments.


Keywords


research ethics, disaster medicine, combat operations

Full Text:

PDF

References


National Commission for the Protection for Human Subjects of Biomedical, Behavioral Research: The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. DHEW Publications No. (OS) 78-0012.Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1979.

Chernin E: Richard Pearson Strong and the iatrogenic plague disaster in Bilibid Prison, Manila, 1906. Rev Infect Dis. 1989; 11(6): 996-1004.

White RM: The Tuskegee study of untreated syphilis revisited. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006; 6(2): 62-63.

Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds.): The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Shuster E: Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337: 1436-1440.

Secretary of Defense to the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force: CS 385: The Wilson Memorandum, dated February 23, 1953. Available in Military Medical Ethics, vol. 2. Chapter 17: The cold war and beyond: Deceptive and covert American medical experimentation, exhibit 17-3.

Lederer S: The cold war and beyond: Covert and deceptive American medical experimentation. In Lounsbury DE, Bellamy RF (eds.): Textbook of Military Medicine: Military Medical Ethics.Washington DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Chapter 17. 2003; 527-528.

US Surgeon General Policy Statement: “Clinical research and investigation involving human beings,” Surgeon General, Public Health Service to the Heads of the Institutions Conducting Research with Public Health Service Grants. ACHRE No. HHS- 090794-A, February 8, 1966.

Department of Health and Human Services: Protection of human subjects, 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46, Subpart A. Revised November 13, 2001 (effective December 13, 2002).

Kilpatrick DG: The ethics of disaster research: A special section. J Trauma Stress. 2004; 17: 361-362.

Sumathipala A, Siribaddana S: Research and clinical ethics after the tsunami: Sri Lanka. Lancet. 2005; 366: 1418-1420.

Rosenstein DL: Decision-making capacity and disaster research. J Trauma Stress. 2004; 17(5): 373-381.

Pape TL, Jaffe NO, Savage T, et al.: Unresolved legal and ethical issues in research of adults with severe traumatic brain injury: Analysis of ongoing protocol. J Rehabil R D. 2004; 41(2): 155-174.

Department of Defense Directive 6200.2: Use of investigational new drugs for force health protection, August 1, 2000.

Army Regulation 40-38: Medical services, clinical investigation program, September 1989.

Department of Defense Directive 3216.2: Protection of human subjects and adherence to ethical standards in DoD-supported research, March 25, 2002.

Griffin MG, Resick PA, Waldrop AE, et al.: Participation in trauma research: Is there evidence of harm? J Trauma Stress. 2004; 16(3): 221-227.

Newman E,Walker EA, Gefland A: Assessing the ethical costs and benefits of trauma-focused research. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1999; 21(3): 187-196.

Levine C: The concept of vulnerability in disaster research. J Trauma Stress. 2004; 17(5): 395-402.

Seedat S, Pienaar WP,Williams D, et al.: Ethics of research on survivors of trauma. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2004; 6(4): 262-267.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2009.0013

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.