Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Charles Weijer

Publications and source records attributed to Charles Weijer.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Is the use of placebo controls ethically permissible in clinical trials of agents intended to reduce fractures in osteoporosis?

Substantial progress has been made in developing treatments that reduce the risk of fractures in osteoporosis. However, available treatments are only partially effective, they are not widely used, and there is need to search for more effective means of fracture prevention. Currently known effective means of reducing fractures were found using randomized placebo-controlled trials. The use of placebo controls in clinical trials has been a subject of significant controversy in recent years. The Declaration of Helsinki revision of October 2000 caused great concern among clinical investigators about the future use of placebo controls if known effective therapeutic agents are available. A working group of ethicists, clinical trial design experts, and clinical investigators examined the current state of knowledge of osteoporosis treatment and trials. They concluded that if placebo controls put subjects at substantial risk of serious outcomes, they are not ethically permissible. Placebo controls in osteoporosis trials with fracture as the measured outcome are permissible only under narrowly defined conditions. Placebo controls may be used if competent, well-informed patients refuse approved therapies for sound reasons, there is a reasonable basis for substantial disagreement or lack of consensus among professionals about whether approved treatments are better than placebos, or subjects are refractory to known effective agents. Active control trials are permissible and desirable if they can be designed and conducted in ways that overcome the interpretive difficulties often associated with such trials.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

The research subject as wage earner.

The practice of paying research subjects for participating in clinical trials has yet to receive an adequate moral analysis. Dickert and Grady argue for a wage payment model in which research subjects are paid an hourly wage based on that of unskilled laborers. If we accept this approach, what follows? Norms for just working conditions emerge from workplace legislation and political theory. All workers, including paid research subjects under Dickert and Grady's analysis, have a right to at least minimum wage, a standard work week, extra pay for overtime hours, a safe workplace, no fault compensation for work-related injury, and union organization. If we accept that paid research subjects are wage earners like any other, then the implications for changes to current practice are substantial.

Canada↗

Lessons from everyday lives: a moral justification for acute care research.

Progress in emergency and critical care requires that clinical research be performed on patients who are incapable of granting consent for research participation. Analyses of the ethics of such research have left some questions incompletely answered. Why should we be permitted to expose vulnerable patients to research risks without their consent? In particular, how do we justify research interventions that have no potential benefit for participants (nontherapeutic interventions)? This article presents a moral justification for nontherapeutic interventions in emergency research. By relying on a framework for assessing research risks, and by drawing on the example of pediatric research, this justification is founded in how institutional review boards, and society in general, analyze risk. Our justification for emergency research also suggests additional protections for emergency research participants, including a stringent threshold for research risk, that still permit important research to proceed.

Child↗

A critical appraisal of protections for aboriginal communities in biomedical research.

As scientists target communities for research into the etiology, especially the genetic determinants of common diseases, there have been calls for the protection of communities. This paper identifies the distinct characteristics of aboriginal communities and their implications for research in these communities. It also contends that the framework in the Belmont Report is inadequate in this context and suggests a fourth principle of respect for communities. To explore how such a principle might be specified and operationalized, it reviews existing guidelines for protecting aboriginal communities and points out problems with these guidelines and areas for further work.

Cultural Characteristics↗