Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Research without consent: current status, 2003.

Michelle H Biros1

  • 1Department of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center and The University of Minnesota School of Medicine, 701 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415, USA. biros001@umn.edu

Annals of Emergency Medicine
|October 2, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Efficacy of Losartan in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19-Induced Lung Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA network open·2022
Same author

A multi-center phase II randomized clinical trial of losartan on symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19.

EClinicalMedicine·2021
Same author

In reply: In fact, one size (or dose) does not fit all.

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine·2021
Same author

Respone to: "Limitations of Retrospective Chart Reviews to Determine Rare Events, and the Unknown Relative Risk of Droperidol".

The western journal of emergency medicine·2021
Same author

Emergency medicine in Japan: past, present, and future.

International journal of emergency medicine·2021
Same author

Randomized Double-blind Trial of Intramuscular Droperidol, Ziprasidone, and Lorazepam for Acute Undifferentiated Agitation in the Emergency Department.

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine·2020
Same journal

Variation in Emergency Department Experience With Pediatric Critical Illness.

Annals of emergency medicine·2026
Same journal

Point-of-Care Ultrasound-Guided Hydrostatic Reduction of Ileocolic Intussusception in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

Annals of emergency medicine·2026
Same journal

Managing Diabetic Ketoacidosis.

Annals of emergency medicine·2026
Same journal

Needle Thoracostomy: Implications of Chest Wall Thickness for Anatomical Location and Needle Length.

Annals of emergency medicine·2026
Same journal

Women Emergency Physicians and Gender Disparities from Entry to Advancement.

Annals of emergency medicine·2026
Same journal

Policy Statements Approved March 2026.

Annals of emergency medicine·2026
See all related articles

Regulations for emergency research without informed consent were established in 1996 but are rarely used. Barriers include regulatory burden and institutional review board reluctance, hindering critical resuscitation research.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Clinical Research Regulation
  • Emergency Medicine Research

Background:

  • US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations in 1996 allowed emergency research without prospective informed consent.
  • These rules harmonized oversight and ended a moratorium on resuscitation research, which had halted for nearly four years.
  • Despite their availability, the FDA's emergency exception and HHS's waiver of informed consent have been infrequently utilized.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the history and implementation of FDA regulations for emergency research without informed consent.
  • To analyze the reasons for the infrequent use of these regulations.
  • To propose strategies for improving the implementation of regulations for emergency and resuscitation research.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchLegal Approach

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

  • Historical review of the FDA's Final Rule development.
  • Summary of regulatory requirements and current usage data.
  • Analysis of perceived obstacles to implementation.
  • Development of suggestions for regulatory refinement.

Main Results:

  • The 1996 regulations, while intended to facilitate emergency research, have seen limited application.
  • Perceived obstacles include increased regulatory burden, costs, time, and institutional review board apprehension regarding legal issues.
  • These regulations remain the primary mechanism for conducting research without consent in emergency settings.

Conclusions:

  • The infrequent use of emergency research regulations poses a challenge for advancing critical resuscitation studies.
  • Addressing implementation barriers and refining regulations is crucial for balancing patient protection with research feasibility.
  • Collaborative efforts between the research community and regulatory bodies can optimize these regulations for effective and ethical emergency research.