BackgroundPregnant people have been overlooked or excluded from clinical research, resulting in a lack of scientific knowledge on medication safety and efficacy during pregnancy. Thus far, both the opportunities to generate evidence-based knowledge beyond clinical trials and the role of pregnant people in changing their status quo have not been discussed. Some scholars have argued that for rare disease patients, for whom, just like pregnant people, a poor evidence base exists regarding treatments, solidarity has played an important role in addressing (...) the evidence gap. This paper explores whether and how the enactment of solidarity among pregnant people can be stimulated to help address the poor evidence base on medications used during pregnancy.MethodWe use the concept of solidarity formulated by Prainsack and Buyx and enrich their concept by providing an account for stimulating the enactment of solidarity. Then we apply this account to the case of pregnant people who use medication.ResultsSolidarity means enacted commitment on the part of an individual to assisting others with whom the person recognizes a similarity in a relevant respect. Although solidarity cannot be imposed, we argue that the empowerment of people is a crucial concept in understanding how solidarity can be stimulated. Empowerment in the context of pregnant people means creating awareness about their status quo, explaining how scientific research can help close the knowledge gap, and how pregnant people can themselves contribute. In particular, how pregnant people can contribute to the collection of health data to strengthen the evidence base for medications used during pregnancy.ConclusionsWe conclude that acting in solidarity can help change the status quo for pregnant people. Furthermore, we argue that the empowerment of pregnant people and other relevant stakeholders is a way to stimulate the enactment of solidarity. The process of empowerment starts by raising awareness about the lack of evidence on medications used during prengnacy and by explaining to pregnant people how they can contribute to changing the way knowledge is being generated by, for example, sharing data on the health effects of medications. (shrink)

BackgroundThere is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as (...) a case-study.MethodsWe conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands.ResultsThree themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals’ individual perception of risk may influence recruitment.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women. (shrink)

This article addresses an important, overlooked regulatory challenge during global health emergencies. It provides novel insights into how, and why, best practice can support decision makers in interpreting and implementing key guidance on conducting research during GHEs. The ability to conduct research before, during and after such events is crucial. The recent West-African Ebola outbreaks and the Zika virus have highlighted considerable room for improvement in meeting the imperative to research and rapidly develop effective therapies. A means of effectively capturing (...) these experiences and folding them into future decision-making is lacking; the need for effective practical translational measures remains. The challenge for the research community lies in extracting meaningful action-guiding content from pre-existing guidelines—which draw upon practical examples of guidelines ‘in action’—that assist in determining how to act in a particular situation. Insights are provided into the role of best practice as a means to do so; such examples can provide invaluable support to decision makers in interpreting high-level guidance; overarching guidelines retain their necessary level of generality and flexibility, whilst corresponding best practice examples—which incorporate important lessons learned—illustrate how such guidelines can be interpreted at a practical level. (shrink)

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death of women in the United States, yet cardiovascular research is disproportionately conducted using male human subjects and male animal models. This article deploys Katrina Hutchison’s (2019) analysis of gender disparity in clinical trials as a moral aggregation problem to address the problem of underrepresentation of women in cardiovascular research. I identify cost concerns, convenience, pregnancy, and negligence as potential reasons for the underrepresentation of women in CVD research. Finally, I suggest that multilevel (...) strategies will be needed to eliminate sex disparity in CVD research and improve patient care. (shrink)

Several lines of evidence suggest that children born via Cesarean section are at greater risk for adverse health outcomes including allergies, asthma and obesity. Vaginal seeding is a medical procedure in which infants born by C-section are swabbed immediately after birth with vaginal secretions from the mother. This procedure has been proposed as a way to transfer the mother's vaginal microbiome to the child, thereby restoring the natural exposure that occurs during vaginal birth that is interrupted in the case of (...) babies born via C-section. Preliminary evidence indicates partial restoration of microbes. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine the health benefits of the procedure. Several studies, including trial, are currently underway. At the same time, in the clinic setting, doctors are increasingly being asked to by expectant mothers to have their babies seeded. This article reports on the current research on this procedure and the issues it raises for regulators, researchers, physicians, and patients. (shrink)

BackgroundThe proper and ethical inclusion of PWLHIV and their young children in research is paramount to ensure valid evidence is generated to optimize treatment and care. Little empirical data exists to inform ethical considerations deemed most critical to these populations. Our study aimed to systematically review the empiric literature regarding ethical considerations for research participation of PWLHIV and their young children.MethodsWe conducted this systematic review in partnership with a medical librarian. A search strategy was designed and performed within the following (...) electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We screened titles and abstracts using the following inclusion criteria: (1) a study population of PWLHIV or children under 5 years of age; and (2) collection of qualitative or quantitative data regarding ethics of research participation. Excluded were reviews, commentaries, policy statements, clinical care-related ethics concerns, abstracts, case studies, or studies unrelated to HIV research. Studies were appraised for quality, data were extracted, and studies were qualitatively analyzed using a principle-based ethical framework within the Belmont Report.ResultsOf the 7470 titles identified, 538 full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility and only three articles met full criteria for inclusion within this review. While we allowed for inclusion of studies involving young children born to mothers with HIV, only articles focused on PWLHIV were identified. Within the results of these studies, four themes emerged: (1) adequacy of informed consent; (2) consideration of paternal involvement; (3) balancing risks; and (4) access to research and treatment. A strength of this review is that it included perspectives of international research investigators, community leaders, and male partners. However, only two studies collected empiric data from PWLHIV regarding their experiences participating in researchConclusionResearchers and funding agencies should be aware of these considerations and appreciate the value of and critical need for formative research to ensure clinical trials involving PWLHIV promote ethical, well-informed research participation and, ultimately, improve care outcomes. More research is needed to create a comprehensive ethical framework for researchers when conducting studies with PWLHIV. (shrink)

A new study published in Journal of Medical Ethics by van der Zande et al 1 further highlights why classifying pregnant women as a ‘vulnerable population’ in the context of research is deeply problematic. Because the designation of ‘vulnerable’ is otherwise applied to populations whose decision-making capacity about research participation is somehow compromised—such as children and adults of limited cognitive ability—many of us have been arguing for some time that using this designation for pregnant women is inappropriate and disrespectful.2–4 There (...) is nothing about the state of pregnancy that renders pregnant women incapable of offering valid research consents or refusals. Moreover, rather than protecting the health interests of pregnant women and their offspring, this designation has had the opposite effect. It has contributed to the widespread exclusion of pregnant women from research activities, which is itself pernicious to the health of pregnant women.5 We know that pregnant women encounter a range of health needs across their pregnancies. In the USA, for example, approximately 9 out of every 10 women use some kind of medication during pregnancy to manage health conditions.6 Yet because pregnant women have largely been …. (shrink)

At healthcare facilities worldwide, women during childbirth undergo medical procedures they haven’t consented to and experience mistreatment and disrespect. This phenomenon is recognized as obstetric violence (OV), a distinct form of gender violence. The resulting trauma carries both immediate and long-term implications, making it vital to address for promoting women’s health. OV is partly shaped by a narrow, paternalistic conception of vulnerability. A flawed conception of the vulnerability of pregnant women and fetuses has opened the door to medical control and (...) coercion during childbirth. In this paper we examine what role notions of vulnerability play in perpetuating OV and consider recent attitudinal shifts in research ethics as a model for addressing it. (shrink)

This commentary explores the notion of vulnerability applied to pregnant women in clinical research. The use of this notion, related to a semantic problem, raises an ethical issue and participates in the quasi-systematic exclusion of this sub-population from the research process.