Literature DB >> 7738458

Individual autonomy and the double-blind controlled experiment: the case of desperate volunteers.

B P Minogue1, G Palmer-Fernandez, L Udell, B N Waller.   

Abstract

This essay explores some concerns about the quality of informed consent in patients whose autonomy is diminished by fatal illness. It argues that patients with diminished autonomy cannot give free and voluntary consent, and that recruitment of such patients as subjects in human experimentation exploits their vulnerability in a morally objectionable way. Two options are given to overcome this objection: (i) recruit only those patients who desire to contribute to medical knowledge, rather than gain access to experimental treatment, or (ii) provide prospective subjects the choice to participate in standard double-blind study or receive the experimental treatment. Either option would guarantee that patients in desperate conditions are given a more meaningful choice and a richer freedom, and thus a higher quality of informed consent, than under standard randomized trials.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7738458     DOI: 10.1093/jmp/20.1.43

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Philos        ISSN: 0360-5310


  9 in total

Review 1.  The promise of empirical research in the study of informed consent theory and practice.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Marie Caputo; Christopher Burant
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2004-03

2.  Ethical issues in cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Minoo N Kavarana; Robert M Sade
Journal:  Future Cardiol       Date:  2012-05

Review 3.  Should desperate volunteers be included in randomised controlled trials?

Authors:  P Allmark; S Mason
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  The ethics of placebo-controlled trials: a comparison of inert and active placebo controls.

Authors:  Sarah J L Edward; Andrew J Stevens; David A Braunholtz; Richard J Lilford; Teresa Swift
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  A direct comparison of research decision-making capacity: schizophrenia/schizoaffective, medically ill, and non-ill subjects.

Authors:  Philip J Candilis; Kenneth E Fletcher; Cynthia M A Geppert; Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 6.  The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals.

Authors:  S J Edwards; R J Lilford; J Hewison
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

7.  The decision making control instrument to assess voluntary consent.

Authors:  Victoria A Miller; Richard F Ittenbach; Diana Harris; William W Reynolds; Tom L Beauchamp; Mary Frances Luce; Robert M Nelson
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Ethical Issues in Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Focus on Risk and Consent.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Paul E Holtzheimer; Jinger G Hoop; Helen S Mayberg; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  AJOB Neurosci       Date:  2011

9.  Motivation to participate and experiences of the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in emergency obstetric care in Uganda.

Authors:  Dan Kabonge Kaye
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 2.652

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.