BACKGROUND: Neurodevelopment and growth are primary concerns when neonates are born extremely premature (between 23 and 28 weeks gestation). The focus of the PENUT Trial is to administer erythropoietin (Epo) to extremely preterm infants and to study the potential neuroprotective effects of Epo. The PENUT ethics survey was designed to provide study investigators with parental feedback regarding the consent process for the PENUT Trial and to improve the consent process for future research trials. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research thesis are to learn (1) what factors are important to parents who are approached for informed consent to include their infants in a research study and (2) how parents may be influenced by demographic and social factors. The hypothesis is that parents approached prenatally may be more likely to consider enrolling their infants into the PENUT Trial. METHODS: All parents approached to enroll their eligible infants into the PENUT Trial (both consenting and non-consenting parents) were eligible to complete the ethics survey. While completing the survey, parents (1) responded to statements about factors involved in their decision-making process, (2) rated their overall experiences in being asked to join the PENUT Trial, (3) described what ultimately led them to enroll or not to enroll their infants in the PENUT Trial, and (4) responded to demographic questions. RESULTS: Thirty mothers of infants eligible for the PENUT Trial (22 consenting, 8 non-consenting) were approached by a research study coordinator to complete the survey. Of the 22 consenting mothers, 10 were approached prenatally, and 12 were approached postnatally for the PENUT Trial. However, of the 8 non-consenting mothers, only 1 was approached prenatally, whereas 7 were approached postnatally for the PENUT Trial. The ethics survey was completed by 20 of 22 consenting mothers and 6 of 8 non-consenting mothers. The average rating among mothers of their overall experiences with the consenting process for the PENUT Trial was 3.77 (2.75 among non-consenters, 4.00 among consenters) on a scale of 1 (= poor) to 5 (= excellent). Thirteen mothers preferred to be approached for the PENUT Trial by their baby’s neonatologist (6 preferred their OB/GYN, 5 preferred another doctor, 1 preferred a study coordinator, and 10 had no preference). In addition, 14 mothers preferred that the person approaching them was involved in the research trial (5 preferred person not involved, 2 preferred to be approached by those involved and not involved, and 9 had no preference). Lastly, 18 mothers preferred to be approached prenatally (5 postnatally, and 7 had no preference). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings from the PENUT Trial ethics survey support the hypothesis that mothers prefer to be approached prenatally when considering enrollment of their newborn infants into the PENUT Trial. Survey responses also suggest that during the consent process mothers prefer to be approached by either (1) two neonatologists, with one responsible for the baby’s care and the other responsible for the research trial, or (2) one neonatologist who is involved in both the baby’s care and the research trial.

No description available.

Human cultures have used classic psychedelics for healing purposes for millennia, emphasizing their subjective effects. In the 21st century, research has been revived to investigate the therapeutic effects of these substances. These substances show promising results in the treatment of various mental-related disorders such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and others, necessitating ethical considerations and guidelines for researchers, psychotherapists, and policymakers. The subjective effects of the psychedelic experience that these substances evoke, such as the feeling of oneness and interconnectedness, infallibility, the sense of reduced one's self-importance, the encounter with the "ultimate" reality or with God, radically distinguish them from typical psychiatric medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). In their essay "Ethics and Ego Dissolution: the Case of Psilocybin", William R. Smith and Dominic Sisti argue that the special properties of psychedelics entail certain novel risks that warrant "enhanced" informed consent that is "one that is more comprehensive than what may be typical for other psychiatric medications". They emphasize the unique effects of these substances, including 1) the potential for significant personality changes, 2) the short duration of treatment, and 3) the potential for profound and transformative experiences. They highlight the importance of explicitly addressing these potential changes as part of the informed consent process to ensure patient understanding, autonomy, and well-being. This current paper substantially complements Smith and Sisti's work by discussing in more detail the differences between psychedelics and typical psychiatric medications with respect to informed consent. I first support their arguments and then further argue that there are three other critical reasons why psychedelics should not be treated like other psychiatric medications that should be considered when discussing the enhancement of informed consent and disclosure. 1) potential changes in ethical values, 2) set and setting, and 3) suggestibility. To clarify my argument, I propose a distinction between changes in worldview and ethical values induced by the psychedelic experience and emphasize their differential impact on individuals undergoing psychedelic therapy. I introduce the term "ethical limbo", characterized as a state of uncertainty or ambiguity regarding the ethical implications or consequences of a particular action, decision, or situation due to conflicting ethical values, to highlight a potential risk of the psychedelic experience that should be considered in informed consent. Finally, I address potential objections to my arguments before concluding the paper and addressing some limitations of the research.

Forms for consent regarding the use of digital cookies are currently used by websites to convey the information about the use of digital cookies on the visited website. However, the design of these consent forms is not entirely right according to the directives of the General Data Protection Regulation and also not optimal seen from a user's perspective. They often lack options and the informational text is often too brief within the form. As a user, that might make it difficult to understand what it is you accept and what the consequences could be for your personal data. Based on the directives given for the digital cookie consent form, it becomes clear that many do not meet the requirements. The question therefore arise, which factors make a cookie consent form successful, concerning how well a user understands the content and is aware of his/her choice of action? To answer that question, a quantitative- and a qualitative study was conducted. The quantitative study examined people's current understanding and perception about digital cookie forms. The results of that study were then used in the qualitative study to develop prototypes producing new cookie consent forms which were then examined with a usability test. The study presents five factors that contribute to a cookie consent form to be considered successful from the user's perspective in understanding the content and making an active choice. These factors are text, options, full-page consent form, active choice and trustworthiness. These five factors can independently increase the user experience of a form, although, all should be accounted for for better results. The various factors together contribute to a form that complies with different directives and laws, but above all, helps users get a better experience of understanding what they approve of and the feeling of making an active choice. / Formulär för samtycke till användandet av digitala kakor (cookies) används idag av hemsidor för att förmedla informationen om användningen av digitala kakor på den besökta hemsidan. Utformningen av dessa samtyckesformulär är däremot inte alltid helt korrekta enligt direktiven från the General Data Protection Regulation och inte heller optimala sett utifrån en användares perspektiv. De saknas ofta valmöjligheter och information är ofta kortfattad inom formuläret. Som användare, kan det därför vara svårt att förstå vad det är man godkänner och vilka konsekvenser det innebär för ens personliga data. Utifrån de direktiv som ges för utformningen av formulären för samtycke till användandet av digitala kakor blir det tydligt att många inte uppnår kraven. Frågan blir därför vilka faktorer som gör att ett formulär blir framgångsrikt i den aspekt att användaren förstår innehållet och är medveten om sitt val? För att svara på denna fråga gjordes en kvantitativ studie och en kvalitativ studie. Den kvantitativa studien undersökte människors nuvarande förståelse och känsla om formulär för digitala kakor. Resultatet användes denna studie använde sedan i den kvalitativa studien i form av prototyper föreställande nya formulär som sedan undersöktes i ett användartest. Studien resulterade i att fem faktorer visade sig vara avgörande för att ett samtyckesformulär för digitala kakor ska anses framgångsrikt utifrån användarens perspektiv med att förstå innehållet och göra ett aktivt val. Dessa faktorer är, text, alternativ, heltäckande sida av formulär, aktivt val och pålitlighet. Dessa fem faktorer kan enskilt förhöja användarupplevelsen av ett formulär, dock bör man ta hänsyn till alla för ett bästa resultat. De olika faktorerna bidrar tillsammans till ett formulär som följer olika direktiv och lagar men framförallt bidrar till att användarna får en bättre upplevelse med att förstå vad de godkänner och känslan av att göra ett medvetet val.

Although rape is prevalent in the United States, conviction rates for perpetrators are low. Before developing a solution for low conviction rates in rape cases, researchers must examine factors that influence juror decisions in rape trials. The current study investigated the influence of complainant substance use and juror education about rape myths and sexual consent laws. Mock jurors were randomly assigned to one of twelve conditions and after reading the rape trial summary were asked to rate defendant guilt and complainant and defendant blameworthiness and credibility. Mock jurors in the education condition rated the defendant as significantly guiltier and more to blame for the sexual assault than did mock jurors in the no education condition.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.