Informed consent and investigational new drug abuses in the U.S. military.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The focal point of this investigation was to research the ethical issues surrounding the military's requests for informed consent waivers when using investigational drugs, and the recent debate surrounding the anthrax vaccine as an investigational new drug (IND).

DESIGN:

The military's management of the informed consent process was examined using documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Institutional Review Board (IRB) minutes, legal pleadings, and protocols for specific investigational drugs.

RESULTS:

In December 1990, prior to Operation Desert Storm, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) granted the Department of Defense (DoD) an unprecedented waiver to the federally mandated informed-consent requirement for the use of investigational drugs. However, the waiver approval was conditional, and the FDA insisted on several safeguards. Partially in response to the subsequent Gulf War Syndrome debate, the FDA recently evaluated the military's use of investigational drugs during the Gulf War. The FDA cited the military for significant deviations from the originally approved protocols. Most notably, the military was found to be abusing the IRB process by convening a second IRB when the first IRB concluded that waiving informed consent was unethical. In addition, there was a gross lack of documentation and no monitoring of adverse reactions. The DoD's plan to use the current anthrax vaccine on all 2.4 million troops against inhalation anthrax has kindled an additional investigational drug controversy. The safety and efficacy of the use of the anthrax vaccine as a prophylactic against inhalation anthrax have been questioned by both military and medical organizations. There have never been any published studies of human efficacy or long-term effects for the anthrax vaccine. In addition, the military is not using the vaccine for its intended purpose, and it is also not adhering to prescribed dosing schedules. There is clear evidence to support the claim that, in fact, the military's use of the anthrax vaccine should be considered unethical.

CONCLUSIONS:

I argue that in medical situations, the military is obligated to treat its troops as autonomous persons entitled to basic rights and protections. The DoD is currently using an approved drug, the anthrax vaccine, for an unapproved purpose and in an unapproved manner. In doing so, the DoD is not only violating the FDA's regulations against such practices, it is also violating an executive order which only allows the president to authorize the use of INDs on service members without their consent.

• Authors: Mary L Cummings
• Journal: Accountability in research (Account Res) 2002 Apr-Jun Vol. 9 Issue 2 Pg. 93-103 ISSN: 0898-9621 [Print] United States
• PMID: 12625353 (Publication Type: Journal Article)

Chemical References

• Drugs, Investigational

Topics

• Anthrax (prevention & control)
• Biological Warfare
• Drugs, Investigational
• Ethics Committees, Research
• Government Regulation
• Gulf War
• Human Experimentation (ethics)
• Humans
• Informed Consent (ethics)
• Military Personnel
• Public Policy
• United States
• United States Food and Drug Administration
• Vaccination