Michael Hadskis

The Therapeutic Misconception: A Threat to Valid Parental Consent for Pediatric Neuroimaging Research

Neuroimaging research has brought major advances to child health and well-being. However, because of the vulnerabilities associated with neurological and developmental conditions, the parental need for hope, and the expectation of parents that new medical advances can benefit their child, pediatric neuroimaging research presents significant challenges to the general problem of consent in the context of research involving children. A particular challenge in this domain is created by the presence of therapeutic misconception on the part of parents and other key research stakeholders. This article reviews the concept of therapeutic misconception and its role in pediatric neuroimaging research. It argues that this misconception can compromise consent given by parents for the involvement of their children in research as healthy controls or as persons with neurological and developmental conditions. The article further contends that therapeutic misconception can undermine the research ethics review process for proposed and ongoing neuroimaging studies. Against this backdrop, the article concludes with recommendations for mitigating the effects of therapeutic misconception in pediatric neuroimaging research.

[In defence of consent and capacity boards for end-of-life care].

In Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) found that, in Ontario, it is the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) and not the courts per se who will resolve conflicts between substitute decision-makers (SDMs) and health practitioners regarding the withdrawal of lifesustaining treatment from incapable patients. This finding was based on the SCC’s interpretation of the Ontario Health Care Consent Act (HCCA). Hawryluck et al. express concern about the SCC’s determination that the CCB is charged with resolving such conflicts since, in their view, this body is ill-equipped to fulfill this role. Instead, they take the position that these disputes should be adjudicated by the courts. We disagree with this position and, for the reasons set out in this editorial, take the position that provincial and territorial legislators across the country should follow the lead of the Ontario legislature, revise their health care consent legislation to clarify the law with respect to the unilateral withholding and withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment, and establish open and transparent consent and capacity tribunals to deal with irreconcilable conflicts in this context.