Psychiatric Drug Research: Is It Safe?
Lately, the news is filled with stories of drug and other medical research being conducted by many hospitals and universities. Drug research has proven to be helpful in combating many diseases and conditions, but is it safe? Psychiatric drug research is an especially sensitive issue, given the possible problems with testing drugs that alter brain chemistry.
Recent news of Stanford University violating state regulations by testing an anti-depressant drug on minors incarcerated in the California Youth Authority have made even more questions arise. Is drug testing safe? Is it ethical? When is it appropriate to test unknown medications on human subjects?
History illustrates a rocky road for psychiatric drug research, with recent history being the most controversial. In the past, many research projects were conducted without any regard to the research subjects. Most of the patients were permanent residents of state psychiatric institutions who had no way of protecting themselves or even knowing their rights. In the 1950s, the first laws governing psychiatric research were implemented, offering more protection for research subjects. Unfortunately, there have been some gross violations of these laws since then.
In one landmark case, the New York State Appeals Court found the state's rules governing psychiatric experiments on children and the mentally ill to be unconstitutional. The court found the rules did not adequately protect people who, because of age or illness, could not give informed consent to take part in drug tests or other experiments. This decision forced the cancellation of at least 15 research projects.
Researchers defended the studies, citing the only way to test drugs for serious diseases such as Alzheimer's disease or schizophrenia was to use subjects who already suffer from the condition, even if they are unable to give consent. The researchers also expressed fear that obtaining consent from parents or guardians could seriously hamper research efforts. In fact, the researchers showed absolutely no interest in even trying to obtain consent. It seemed they couldn't be bothered with wasting their time.
The court stood by its decision, pointing out at least one study which showed to have no benefit to the subjects. In the study, suicidal adolescents were forced to undergo spinal taps, a painful procedure, in order to monitor chemicals in their nervous systems. The procedure was done for monitoring purposes only; no goals of healing the youth, or even trying to prevent future suicide attempts were in mind. Patient advocates claimed the youth were treated like circus freaks, forced to undergo painful tests without consideration of the fact that they were suicidal and in need of treatment, not monitoring.
Latest Articles