SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
This module examines ethical debates about the level of care that should be provided to human research participants. Particular attention is placed on the question of what should be considered an ethically acceptable control arm. You will also learn what relevant international and domestic regulatory documents say about standards of care.
PURPOSE: To provide a primer for novice nurse scientists about the increasingly regulated human research environment. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCTS: Federal regulations and international guidelines about protection of human research participants are discussed, with particular attention to institutional review boards for human research. CONCLUSION: Understanding the processes used by institutional review boards to foster ethical human research promotes collaborative interactions and supports compliant research work.
During the past 30 years there has been increasing concern for ethical considerations that pertain to the conduct of human biomedical research. Consequently, many national and international medical and dental organizations and agencies have developed regulations, policies or ethical guidelines for the protection of human subjects who take part in clinical investigations. In the United States, more than 500 research institutions have established permanent committees to review research in humans conducted by their institutions. Members of these committees must represent a broad range of backgrounds, interests, and concerns. Prospective study subjects must be able to make an informed decision on whether to participate in any study, without any element of force, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion. Obtaining informed consent for studies of children, the mentally infirm, and persons with restricted civil freedom presents special problems. Ethical considerations also raise questions on appropriate designs for clinical studies, e.g. use of untreated controls. Dental studies, particularly those testing caries-preventive agents, raise special questions of design, informed consent, ethical procedures and the use of diagnostic radiographs. The director of a clinical study is responsible for the conduct of all personnel connected with the investigation.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The CRASH Trial (Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head injury), which started in April 1999 hopes to answer the question of whether or not there is any benefit to giving high dose corticosteroids after significant head injuries. To do this patients are randomised to receive either the standard care for head injuries, as defined by the receiving hospital, or standard care plus a 48 hour infusion of corticosteroids. This is to be started within eight hours of injury, preferably as soon as possible. As all eligible patients will have a reduced level of consciousness informed consent has been deemed unnecessary. In this review the issue of consent in human experimentation is presented with a special emphasis on the problems faced in emergency medicine research, and the way these have been tackled.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The quality of the consent obtained from 41 volunteer subjects in eight experiments is evaluated. Five subjects (all physicians) gave informed consent; 22 subjects gave partially informed consent; and 14 subjects merely gave consent. It is argued that 'informed' consent is obtainable only from medically trained people, and that lip service to this concept in laymen should cease. The concept of medical competence should instead be introduced and a personal medical referee appointed to adjudicate on behalf of the volunteer.
In this paper, the author attempts to explore some of the problems connected with the formulation and application of international biomedical ethical guidelines, with particular reference to Africa. Recent attempts at revising and updating some international medical ethical guidelines have been bedevilled by intractable controversies and wrangling regarding both the content and formulation. From the vantage position of relative familiarity with both African and Western contexts, and the privilege of having been involved in the revision and updating of one of the international ethical guidelines, the author reflects broadly on these issues and attempts prescribing an approach from both the theoretical and practical angles liable to mitigate, if not completely eliminate, some of the problems and difficulties.
There is a long history of medical research that involves intentionally infecting healthy people in order to study diseases and their treatments. Such research-what might be called "human challenge studies"-are an important strand of much current research-for example, in the development of vaccinations. The many international and national guidelines about the proper conduct of medical research do not specifically address human challenge studies. In this paper we review the guidelines on the risk of harm that healthy volunteers may be exposed to in the course of medical research. We examine the ethical arguments that are implicit or explicit in these guidelines. We then ask whether there is reason for limiting such studies on grounds independent of risk of harm. We conclude that the major ethical concern with challenge studies is that of risk of harm and that the fact that a study is a challenge study is not a wrong in itself.