Evolution of European Union legislation on emergency research
Abstract
Aim Emergency research is necessary to prevent exposure of patients to unvalidated clinical practice (nonmaleficence), and to improve the dismal prognosis of disorders requiring emergent treatment such as cardiac arrest (beneficence). Regulations that govern clinical research should conform to bioethical principles of respect for nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. Our objectives are to review the evolution of European Union (EU) legislation on emergency research, and to identify potentially remaining problems. Data sources EU legislative sources on clinical research and medical literature describing the impact of EU Regulations on emergency research. Results Article 5 of EU Directive 2001/20/EC required consent before enrolment in a research study to ensure the autonomy of potentially incapacitated research subjects. However, obtaining such consent is often impossible in emergency situations. Directive 2001/20/EC was criticized for potentially preventing emergency research. Several EU Member States addressed this problem by permitting deferred consent. International ethical guidelines supporting deferred consent were also cited by Good Clinical Practice Directive 2005/28/EC. However, Directive 2001/20/EC was not revised to achieve harmonization of EU emergency research, thus resulting in ongoing "ambiguity" as regards to emergency research legitimacy. This will be definitively addressed by applying EU Regulation No. 536/2014 and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Deferred consent is considered as an ethically acceptable alternative for low-risk research, ensuring both the possibility of research benefit and respect for patient/family autonomy.
“This is considered as an ethically acceptable alternative for low-risk research, ensuring both the possibility of research benefit and respect for patient/family autonomy. 325,326”
From European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions (2021) · cites this paper as [326]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions
Mentzelopoulos, S. D., Couper, K., Voorde, P. V. D., Druwé, P., Blom, M., Perkins, G. D., Lulic, I., Djakow, J., Raffay, V., Lilja, G., et al. (2021) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.017 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Self-citationA survey of key opinion leaders on ethical resuscitation practices in 31 European Countries
Mentzelopoulos, S. D., Bossaert, L., Raffay, V., Askitopoulou, H., Perkins, G. D., Greif, R., Haywood, K., Van de Voorde, P., & Xanthos, T. (2016) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.12.010 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Mentzelopoulos, S. D., Mantzanas, M., van Belle, G., & Nichol, G.
- Affiliations
- National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nichol, Graham
- Venue
- Resuscitation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-06
- Volume
- 91
- Pages
- 84-91
- ISSN
- 0300-9572 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2054030937
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7
- FWCI
- 0.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Resuscitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- emergency research, Directive 2001/20/EC, deferred consent, informed consent, non-maleficence, beneficence, research ethics, cardiac arrest, good clinical practice, emergency care
- MeSH terms
- Emergency Medicine, European Union, Humans, Informed Consent, Ethics, Research, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review