Literature DB >> 16943338

Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects.

P B Miller1, C Weijer.   

Abstract

When may a physician enroll a patient in clinical research? An adequate answer to this question requires clarification of trust-based obligations of the state and the physician-researcher respectively to the patient-subject. The state relies on the voluntarism of patient-subjects to advance the public interest in science. Accordingly, it is obligated to protect the agent-neutral interests of patient-subjects through promulgating standards that secure these interests. Component analysis is the only comprehensive and systematic specification of regulatory standards for benefit-harm evaluation by research ethics committees (RECs). Clinical equipoise, a standard in component analysis, ensures the treatment arms of a randomised control trial are consistent with competent medical care. It thus serves to protect agent-neutral welfare interests of the patient-subject. But REC review occurs prior to enrolment, highlighting the independent responsibility of the physician-researcher to protect the agent-relative welfare interests of the patient-subject. In a novel interpretation of the duty of care, we argue for a "clinical judgment principle" which requires the physician-researcher to exercise judgment in the interests of the patient-subject taking into account evidence on treatments and the patient-subject's circumstances.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16943338      PMCID: PMC2563395          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.014670

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  14 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Moral solutions in assessing research risk.

Authors:  P B Miller; C Weijer
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct

3.  For and against: clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  C Weijer; S H Shapiro; K Cranley Glass
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-09-23

4.  The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials.

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Donald L Rosenstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-03       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Avoiding a Jekyll-and-Hyde approach to the ethics of clinical research and practice.

Authors:  Trudo Lemmens; Paul B Miller
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 11.229

6.  When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?

Authors:  Charles Weijer; Paul B Miller
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 53.440

7.  The clinician-investigator: unavoidable but manageable tension.

Authors:  Howard Brody; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  2003-12

8.  In loco parentis. Minimal risk as an ethical threshold for research upon children.

Authors:  B Freedman; A Fuks; C Weijer
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1993 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

9.  Children as research subjects: a dilemma.

Authors:  L M Kopelman
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  2000-12

10.  How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?

Authors:  Seema Shah; Amy Whittle; Benjamin Wilfond; Gary Gensler; David Wendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  13 in total

1.  Extending clinical equipoise to phase 1 trials involving patients: unresolved problems.

Authors:  James A Anderson; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  2010-03

2.  Ethical Considerations in Ending Exploratory Brain-Computer Interface Research Studies in Locked-in Syndrome.

Authors:  Eran Klein; Betts Peters; Matt Higger
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Barbara J Evans; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2014-03-10       Impact factor: 3.908

4.  From subject to participant: ethics and the evolving role of community in health research.

Authors:  Elizabeth Bromley; Lisa Mikesell; Felica Jones; Dmitry Khodyakov
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Scientific research and the public trust.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2010-08-29       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  The effect of early insulin therapy on pancreatic β-cell function and long-term glycemic control in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients.

Authors:  Suk Chon; Seungjoon Oh; Sung Woon Kim; Jin-Woo Kim; Young Seol Kim; Jeong-taek Woo
Journal:  Korean J Intern Med       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 3.165

7.  The paradox of equipoise: the principle that drives and limits therapeutic discoveries in clinical research.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.302

8.  When is it rational to participate in a clinical trial? A game theory approach incorporating trust, regret and guilt.

Authors:  Benjamin Djulbegovic; Iztok Hozo
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Does clinical equipoise apply to cluster randomized trials in health research?

Authors:  Ariella Binik; Charles Weijer; Andrew D McRae; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Robert Boruch; Jamie C Brehaut; Allan Donner; Martin P Eccles; Raphael Saginur; Monica Taljaard; Merrick Zwarenstein
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-05-11       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  A Defense of The-Risks-of-Daily-Life.

Authors:  Ariella Binik
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  2017
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.