Subject comprehension, standards of information disclosure and potential liability in research.
Health Law Journal › Nbr. 2001, January 2001
Linked as:
Health Law Journal › Nbr. 2001, January 2001
Linked as:Summary
Medical research - Canada
See the full content of this document
Extract
Subject comprehension, standards of information disclosure and potential liability in research.
I. Introduction
The history of modern research ethics can be traced to the ten articles of the Nuremberg Code, a response to the atrocities that Nazi physicians had perpetrated upon their hapless victims in so-called "medical experiments." Informed consent to research was the first and most prominent of those ten articles. In spite of this attempt to regulate human subjects research, however, some twenty years later Dr. Henry K. Beecher published a critical survey of twenty-two research projects conducted in the United States in the years subsequent to Nuremberg. (1) Beecher observed that in the vast majority of cases research subjects were never adequately apprised of the nature of the research conducted upon them. He reiterated the need for informed consent as a necessary component of morally acceptable research on human subjects. At the same time, however, he acknowledged that in practice it is often difficult to obtain adequately informed consent. Hence Beecher insisted on a second component in order for patients to be s afeguarded in the research process, namely "intelligent, informed, conscientious, compassionate, responsible investigators." (2) There can be no doubt that the conduct of ethical research rests ultimately in the hands of persons of integrity. Yet Beecher's own investigations indicated that we would be foolish to assume this high standard is always or usually attained. In the years subsequent to Beecher's article a consensus has emerged that independent review of proposed research on human subjects is essential. This is the position set forth in the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, (3) and it serves as the historical basis of the contemporary Research Ethics Board (REB). Prior review by a duly constituted committee has become the ethical sine qua non of modem human subjects research. Despite the widespread implementation of REB review, however, difficulties persist with regard to the matter of ensuring informed consent on the part of prospective research subjects. (4) The 1980 Supreme Court decision in Reibl v. Hughes (5) established the Canadian standard for informed consent to therapeutic treatment. However, the leading Canadian case for consent in the context of research and experimenta...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other documents:
Deaths | 85 years and counting ; mennonite college of nursing alumni return for celebration | The Antidote | Rutgers Glad to Escape with Win | decisión nº 26-05 de ejecutor de medidas de los municipios josé felix rivas, josé rafael revenga, santos michelena bolívar y tovar. de aragua, de april 28, 2... | Decisión nº 851 de Juzgado Superior Contencioso Tributario de Anzoategui, de May 19, 2008 | Decisión nº 209-250308 de Juzgado Segundo de Primera Instancia en lo Civil, Mercantil y Agrario de Carabobo (Ex... | decisión de juzgado primero de primera instancia en lo civil mercantil y agrario de carabobo ...