Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Genetic Research as Therapy: Implications of “Gene Therapy” for Informed Consent.Larry R. Churchill, Myra L. Collins, Nancy M. P. King, Stephen G. Pemberton & Keith A. Wailoo - 1998 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 26 (1):38-47.
    In March 1996, the General Accounting Office issued the report Scientific Research: Continued Vigilance Critical to Protecting Human Subjects. It stated that “an inherent conflict of interest exists when physician-researchers include their patients in research protocols. If the physicians do not clearly distinguish between research and treatment in their attempt to inform subjects, the possible benefits of a study can be overemphasized and the risks minimized.” The report also acknowledged that “the line between research and treatment is not always clear (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Genetic Research as Therapy: Implications of "Gene Therapy" for Informed Consent.Larry R. Churchill, Myra L. Collins, Nancy M. R. King, Stephen G. Pemberton & Keith A. Wailoo - 1998 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 26 (1):38-47.
    In March 1996, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued the reportScientific Research: Continued Vigilance Critical to Protecting Human Subjects.It stated that “an inherent conflict of interest exists when physician-researchers include their patients in research protocols. If the physicians do not clearly distinguish between research and treatment in their attempt to inform subjects, the possible benefits of a study can be overemphasized and the risks minimized.” The report also acknowledged that “the line between research and treatment is not always cleartoclinicians. Controversy (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • (1 other version)Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials.Nancy M. P. King - 2000 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (4):332-343.
    Institutional review boards and investigators are used to talking about risks of harm. Both low risks of great harm and high risks of small harm must be disclosed to prospective subjects and should be explained and categorized in ways that help potential subjects to understand and weigh them appropriately. Everyone on an IRB has probably spent time at meetings arguing over whether a three-page bulleted list of risk description is helpful or overkill for prospective subjects. Yet only a small fraction (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   67 citations