What are the key considerations for informed consent in a patient with a terminal illness considering an experimental treatment?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: November 22, 2025View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Ethical Dilemma Example: Terminal Illness and Experimental Treatment Informed Consent

A terminally ill patient considering experimental treatment presents a classic ethical dilemma where the therapeutic misconception—the patient's overestimation of potential benefit—conflicts with the research imperative to gain generalizable knowledge rather than provide individual therapeutic benefit. 1

The Core Ethical Dilemma

The fundamental tension arises because:

  • Research vs. Treatment Intent: The investigator's primary interest is gaining valid, generalizable knowledge, while the patient and family desperately seek life-saving intervention. 1 This creates an inherent conflict of interest when the treating clinician is also the investigator enrolling their own patients. 1

  • Therapeutic Misconception: Critically ill patients and surrogates attribute therapeutic intent to investigational procedures, leading them to overestimate potential clinical benefit from study participation. 1 This is particularly problematic in terminal illness where hope for cure drives decision-making. 1

  • Vulnerability and Dependence: Terminally ill patients are captive and vulnerable, dependent on their care team for all aspects of care. 1 This dependency raises serious concerns about whether consent can truly be voluntary, even when the patient understands the risks. 1

Key Informed Consent Considerations

What Must Be Explicitly Communicated

The purpose of research is to develop generalizable knowledge, not necessarily to benefit the individual patient, and the safety and effectiveness of the new intervention is unclear. 2

Critical disclosure requirements include:

  • Distinguish Research from Treatment: Investigators must explicitly explain that the experimental intervention's primary goal is scientific knowledge generation, not optimizing individual patient care. 1, 2 The patient must understand they are participating in research, not receiving standard treatment. 2

  • Clarify Uncertain Benefit: The distinction must be made between physiologically effective treatments and those providing meaningful clinical benefit to the patient. 3 Treatment outside established indications without supporting evidence is likely experimental or investigational. 3

  • Address Randomization and Placebo: If applicable, patients must understand they will be randomized to receive either the new drug or placebo, and that participation is voluntary with the option to withdraw at any time. 2

  • Explain Additional Risks: Beyond physical risks, informed consent must address potential social, financial, and psychological risks, including loss of privacy and confidentiality during clinical record review. 1, 2

Structural Safeguards to Minimize Conflict

When practitioners serve as both investigators and clinicians for the same patients, a third party (co-investigators, research coordinators, or persons not involved in the study) should explain the research and obtain consent. 1

This separation is critical because:

  • Clinicians may unduly influence patients' or surrogates' decisions due to their therapeutic relationship. 1
  • All persons obtaining consent must declare their involvement in studies. 1
  • The emotional state and urgency of terminal illness further compromise the ability to provide truly informed consent. 1

The Surrogate Decision-Making Challenge

For patients lacking decisional capacity:

  • Surrogate as Trusted Proxy: Surrogates must recognize they have agreed to be a "trusted proxy" with an obligation to determine whether enrollment is compatible with the patient's wishes or interests, and to faithfully represent the participant's interests throughout the research. 1

  • Accuracy Limitations: While surrogates predict patient choices with reasonably high accuracy, most patients prefer having medical decisions made by close friends or family members regardless of agreement level. 1

  • Legal Ambiguity: While surrogate consent for research is ethically justified, its legal status remains ambiguous in most jurisdictions. 1 Laws should be developed to recognize the legal authority of surrogate consent for research. 1

Ongoing Consent Process

Informed consent is not a signature on a form, but a process that continues throughout the course of a clinical study. 1

Investigators must:

  • Regularly reassess whether continued participation is desired by the participant and in their best interest. 1
  • Seek consent directly from the participant if and when they regain decisional capacity. 1
  • Consider disseminating study results to participants to honor their contribution. 1

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Assuming Consent Equals Understanding: Testing post-informed consent to ensure participants understand procedures and risks may be warranted. 1 There is an important distinction between participants who are misinformed versus those displaying "therapeutic optimism" who understand the research intent but are unrealistically optimistic. 1

  • Inadequate Risk-Benefit Communication: Investigators must communicate risks and benefits of interventions with no immediate therapeutic potential as carefully as those with potential benefit. 1 Both types have potential to cause harm. 1

  • Failing to Minimize Therapeutic Misconception: Investigators must actively work to minimize therapeutic misconceptions to preserve autonomy of prospective research participants. 1

Ethical Requirements for the Study Itself

The research must satisfy fundamental ethical requirements:

  • Social Value: The study must address a question whose answer has significant value for improving health or advancing knowledge. 1
  • Scientific Validity: The study design must be methodologically rigorous to generate reliable data. 1
  • Fair Subject Selection: Selection must be based on scientific objectives, not vulnerability or privilege. 1
  • Favorable Risk-Benefit Ratio: Risks must be minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. 1
  • Independent Review: An institutional review board must approve and monitor the study. 1

Data collected up to the point of withdrawal typically remains in the research database, as required by the FDA to determine safety and effectiveness, even if the patient withdraws. 2

References

Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

Guideline

Patient Rights and Informed Consent in Clinical Trials

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Guideline

Medical Necessity Evaluation Criteria

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.