Literature DB >> 31298107

Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events.

Lisa McManus1, Arlene Davis1, Rebecca L Forcier1, Jill A Fisher1.   

Abstract

While risk of harm is an important focus for whether clinical research on humans can and should proceed, there is uncertainty about what constitutes harm to a trial participant. In Phase I trials on healthy volunteers, the purpose of the research is to document and measure safety concerns associated with investigational drugs, and participants are financially compensated for their enrollment in these studies. In this article, we investigate how characterizations of harm are narrated by healthy volunteers in the context of the adverse events (AEs) they experience during clinical trials. Drawing upon qualitative research, we find that participants largely minimize, deny, or re-attribute the cause of these AEs. We illustrate how participants' interpretations of AEs may be shaped both by the clinical trial environment and their economic motivation to participate. While these narratives are emblematic of the larger ambiguity surrounding harm in the context of clinical trial participation, we argue that these interpretations also problematically maintain the narrative of the safety of clinical trials, the ethics of testing investigational drugs on healthy people, and the rigor of data collected in the specter of such ambiguity.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31298107      PMCID: PMC6661148          DOI: 10.1177/1073110519857289

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Law Med Ethics        ISSN: 1073-1105            Impact factor:   1.718


  32 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.  Nuremberg's legacy: some ethical reflections.

Authors:  J F Childress
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.416

3.  Paying research subjects: an analysis of current policies.

Authors:  Neal Dickert; Ezekiel Emanuel; Christine Grady
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-03-05       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Inducement in research.

Authors:  Martin Wilkinson; Andrew Moore
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.898

5.  Repeat participation among normal healthy research volunteers: professional guinea pigs in clinical trials?

Authors:  Carl L Tishler; Suzanne Bartholomae
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.416

6.  (Almost) everything you ever wanted to know about informed consent. [Review of: Faden, RR and Beauchamp, TL. A history and theory of informed concsent. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986].

Authors:  A M Capron
Journal:  Med Humanit Rev       Date:  1987-01

Review 7.  Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk.

Authors:  D B Resnik
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Injury to research volunteers--the clinical-research nightmare.

Authors:  Alastair J J Wood; Janet Darbyshire
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-05-04       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  A risky business: the detection of adverse drug reactions in clinical trials and post-marketing exercises.

Authors:  Oonagh P Corrigan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.634

10.  Human guinea pigs: medical experimentation before World War II. [Review of: Lederer SE. Subjected to science: human experimentation in America before the Second World War. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995].

Authors:  D Rosner
Journal:  Rev Am Hist       Date:  1996-12
View more
  1 in total

1.  Speculating on Precarious Income: Finance Cultures and the Risky Strategies of Healthy Volunteers in Clinical Drug Trials.

Authors:  Jill A Fisher; Megan M Wood; Torin Monahan
Journal:  J Cult Econ       Date:  2020-12-21
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.