Literature DB >> 10435600

Protection of persons with mental disorders from research risk: a response to the report of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

J M Oldham1, S Haimowitz, S J Delano.   

Abstract

For the last several years, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) has considered several complex issues relating to biomedical research. Prominent among these considerations has been the protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects, and the NBAC recently submitted to the president a report entitled Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity. The importance of careful protection of vulnerable populations from undue or inappropriate risk in human subject research cannot be overemphasized, and the NBAC report includes recommendations that would strengthen such protection. However, the creation of workable mechanisms that allow appropriate risk-benefit judgments and that preserve respect for the autonomy of participating research subjects is challenging indeed. We believe that the NBAC has developed recommendations that strengthen protections for individual research participants. However, several key elements of the report are stigmatizing to persons with psychiatric disorders, and they could, if adopted as new federal regulations, inappropriately impede critical categories of psychiatric research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; National Bioethics Advisory Commission

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10435600     DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.56.8.688

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry        ISSN: 0003-990X


  11 in total

1.  A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics.

Authors:  Bernard A Fischer
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-09-28       Impact factor: 9.306

Review 2.  Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Philip J Candilis; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 9.306

Review 3.  The "Vulnerability" of Psychiatric Research Participants: Why This Research Ethics Concept Needs to Be Revisited.

Authors:  Dearbhail Bracken-Roche; Emily Bell; Eric Racine
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 4.356

Review 4.  Magnitude of impairment in decisional capacity in people with schizophrenia compared to normal subjects: an overview.

Authors:  Dilip V Jeste; Colin A Depp; Barton W Palmer
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-09-28       Impact factor: 9.306

5.  The risk-benefit ratio of studying psychiatric symptoms via daily diary methods.

Authors:  Caitlin Wolford-Clevenger; Mickeah J Hugley; James McNulty; Lawrence Christian Elledge; Karen Cropsey; Gregory L Stuart
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  Assessment of consent capability in psychiatric and medical studies.

Authors:  Raymond C Tait; John T Chibnall; Ana Iltis; Anji Wall; Teresa L Deshields
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  IRB Member Judgments of Decisional Capacity, Coercion, and Risk in Medical and Psychiatric Studies.

Authors:  Rebecca Luebbert; Raymond C Tait; John T Chibnall; Teresa L Deshields
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 8.  Research ethics issues in geriatric psychiatry.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Sahana Misra
Journal:  Psychiatr Clin North Am       Date:  2009-06

9.  The investigator and the IRB: a survey of depression and schizophrenia researchers.

Authors:  Bernard A Fischer; Praveen George
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 4.939

10.  Ethics in medical research: General principles with special reference to psychiatry research.

Authors:  Ajit Avasthi; Abhishek Ghosh; Sidharth Sarkar; Sandeep Grover
Journal:  Indian J Psychiatry       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.759

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.