Drugs tested on coma patients

Thousands of critically ill or unconscious patients have been enrolled without their consent in clinical trials to test treatments in New Zealand hospitals.

A medical ethics committee delayed approving a drug company's application in March for an antibiotics trial at Auckland and Christchurch hospitals so it could obtain legal advice from Crown Law.

The lead researcher for the trial told the health and disability ethics committee that, in line with similar applications approved in the past, the aim was to get permission from relatives of the patient and then "retrospective" consent once they had recovered.

Provisional approval for the new trial has since been granted but a patient rights' advocate says the DHBs involved have forgotten the lessons of the Cartwright Inquiry which established the current system of informed consent for healthcare and research.

One of the aims of the trial is to help widen the range of medicines available to deal with the worsening problem of antibiotic-resistant "superbugs". The latest case involves a proposed trial at the Auckland and Christchurch hospitals of a new antibiotic. In a global trial, sponsored by United States-based Cubist Pharmaceuticals, intensive care specialists want to see if the new medicine is as good as the standard antibiotic.

The 20 trial participants will be patients who have picked up pneumonia in hospital while on mechanical ventilation for breathing. They will be legally unable to give consent because they will be fully unconscious, sedated or have a breathing tube in their throat which will prevent them from speaking.

A health and disability ethics committee, chaired by Brian Fergus, has provisionally approved the trial after initially deferring a ruling until it had received advice from Crown Law on the legal basis for enrolling unconscious patients into research trials.

Dr Shay McGuinness, Auckland cardiothoracic intensive care specialist, told the committee that as in similar applications approved by ethics committees, the aim was to obtain "assent from relatives and then retrospective consent" from patients when they had recovered, according to minutes of a March meeting.

"The researcher explained he and colleagues were operating on the basis of previous discussions with Crown Law dating back to around 2005. [He] was of the view that this process dated back to the 1990s and several thousand people had gone through the process."

Auckland Women's Health Council co-ordinator Lynda Williams, who attends the committee's public meetings, said she was outraged that district health boards were forgetting the lessons of the Cartwright Inquiry.

"This is pre-Cartwright stuff. It shows that the patient protections put in place following the 1988 Cartwright Report and the Code of [Health and Disability Consumers'] Rights are not being adhered to."

The code states that when patients are not competent to give consent, they can be treated or enrolled in research if it would be in their best interests and satisfies other conditions.

Ms Williams said she would complain to the Health and Disability Commissioner over the consent process.

"We need to do something about it because it is not okay to be enrolling unconscious patients in research, she told Newstalk ZB.

"We cannot go back to this idea that the doctor knows best."

Health Minister Tony Ryall referred Herald inquiries to the ethics committee, saying: "Ministers are not consulted on specific cases such as this."

Dr Colin McArthur, the Auckland District Health Board clinical adviser on research, said that in virtually all of the earlier trials the comparisons were between two different kinds of standard care.

Up to 4000 New Zealand patients participated in those trials, said Dr McArthur, who is the head of the transtasman Intensive Care Society's clinical trials group.

In the antibiotic trial, which was low risk, participants would be diagnosed earlier and receive extra medical attention. While it was not known if this would improve outcomes, Dr McArthur said this "extra benefit" underpinned the contention the trial was ethical.

"The legal question hasn't been tested in court [or by the Health and Disability Commissioner] about exactly how best interests should be defined."

He said the DHB complied with the code requirement to act reasonably.

Dr McArthur said there was not usually time to consult family members when patients arrived in an intensive care unit. No more than 5 per cent of patients retrospectively - and families, when the patient died - withheld consent for participation in ICU trials.

- Martin Johnston of the New Zealand Herald

Research needed to make improvements

It is only with research improvements with treatments can improve. There are many treatements that were used in previous days that are no longer used today as research has them to be harmful. No doubt there are drugs and treatments that are in use today that we think are of benefit but it is only with carefully conducted research and trials that will be shown to have no benefit or be actually harming the people.

Before any trial can be conducted the ethical studies must be done to shown the current knowledge shows any potential treatments are equal to each other.


Advance directive

Patients, take back the right. Prepare an a.d for your medical records consenting or not consenting to clinical trials should you ever be in ICU. The drugs can only be tested for when patients are seriously ill.

Part of a trend?

Is this sort of thing part of a trend? First legal highs get assessed as low risk and are then tested on people without animal testing first. Then animal testing for legal highs is banned. Now we see humans being used to test other drugs.

So the trend seems to be to move away from animal testing and go straight on to humans. 

On the other hand antibiotic-resistant superbugs are no laughing matter, so I can see the point of this testing. 


Being in a coma should not not mean that you become a lab rat. What harm have Doctors done in the name of a greater good here? They seem to think they know best and are entitled to do what ever they please. I shudder to think that one day I may be at their mercy. If they are worried about antibiotic resistant bugs they should be using their natural control the Bacteriophage not throwing more antibiotics into the mix. Get a clue Western medicine.



So, these are clinical trials with patients who contracted pneumonia in hospital. What is this? Do patients arrive with some other condition, get pneumonia on the ward and go into a coma? It's called iatrogenic: illness caused by the actual treatment.


The meaning of the code's term 'benefit' is that the patient gets an immediate benefit from the application at the time.

Like a heart-restarting drug, say, that saves their life. 

Not some derived benefit in later years after the drug has possibly been approved by the govt.

The doctors seem to want to interpret the code in the sense that 'the patient will get a benefit when the drug is later used widely, and they are treated by it'. This is clearly wrong, however: the only reason for administering the drug is for the benefit of it, so to take the word in a general sense renders it meaningless.

This is significant because carte-blanche drug testing on comatose patients under the guise of 'general benefit to humanity' is, in my opinion, nothing but patient abuse, which is why there is a code in the first place.

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Adams Plumbing, Drainage and Electrical LtdDunedinPlumbers
Markhams Clarke Craw LimitedDunedinBusiness Services
Rochelle CrossmanDunedinLawyers
St James HairdressingDunedinHairdressers