Commentary on Morreim's " So You Think You Know Who's the 'Legally Authorized Representative': Clinical Research Hits a Snag".
In response to the article So You Think You Know Who's the "Legally Authorized Representative": Clinical Research Hits a Snag, this invited commentary draws attention to the practical realities that are overlooked in the paper's examination of enrolling research participants without decisional capac...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Vol. 54; no. 1; pp. 85 - 88 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | commentary Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
Spring2026
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=192490661&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 192490661 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 10731105 JME jtl: Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics issn: 10731105 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Spring2026 vid: 54 iid: 1 pid: 15979 pub: Cambridge University Press artinfo: ui: 192490661 192490661 192490661 10.1017/jme.2025.10221 192490661 ppf: 85 ppct: 3 formats: tig: atl: Commentary on Morreim's " So You Think You Know Who's the 'Legally Authorized Representative': Clinical Research Hits a Snag". aug: au: Serpico, Kimberley affil: Harvard Medical School, United States sug: subj: Research, Medical Ethical Issues Clinical Research Ethical Issues Research Subjects Legislation and Jurisprudence Competence (Legal) Legislation and Jurisprudence Consent (Research) Legislation and Jurisprudence Institutional Review Proxy Legislation and Jurisprudence Research Ethics Decision Making Consent Research Subjects Ethics Committees Patient Rights Ethical Issues Health Policy United States ab: In response to the article So You Think You Know Who's the "Legally Authorized Representative": Clinical Research Hits a Snag, this invited commentary draws attention to the practical realities that are overlooked in the paper's examination of enrolling research participants without decisional capacity to provide their own consent. In such scenarios, the participant's Legally Authorized Representative (LAR) is co-enrolled to consent on the participant's behalf. Implementation of a research-based LAR is a two-part process that involves identifying the LAR according to legal hierarchy and performing a capacity assessment to determine whether the prospective participant requires an LAR. The paper makes several comparisons between standard care and research approaches to these decisions, most of which the author deems inadequate for clinical research contexts, and suggests that navigating this process may pose "unexpected legal and ethical hazards" for researchers. By offering a practitioner's perspective in this commentary, I hope to bring clarity to this argument by explaining from direct experience how LAR implementation includes much greater collaboration and thought partnership between researchers and IRBs than the author gives credit for. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: commentary Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|