Since its inception, bioethics’ principled stance has been to argue against paternalism and elitism, and for an inclusive ethical perspective. But at least in North America, the growth of bioethics as a special area of applied ethics has created conflicts within the field itself. Those who, a generation earlier, argued against paternalism and for both professional and public accountability in medical decision making are now part of the decision making process. Too often, it is argued in this paper, their allegiance (...) is to the employer, or to a view of medicine that is institutionally based. As a result, it is suggested by this review, medical ethicists have adopted the perspective that, in the early 1970s, they most criticised. The answer, it is argued here, is to revisit a lexicographical ordering of responsibility in bioethics, one that recognises professionals as individuals with responsibilities, as citizens with a public posture, and finally, as professionals involved in the process of medical decision making. (shrink)

In this paper we consider the use of cases in medical ethics research and teaching. To date, there has been little discussion about the consent or confidentiality requirements that ought to govern the use of cases in these areas. This is in marked contrast to the requirements for consent to publish cases in clinical journals, or to use personal information in research. There are a number of reasons why it might be difficult to obtain consent to use cases in ethics. (...) Many cases concern people who are incompetent, and thus unable to give consent. Often the material is of a sensitive nature, it is not clear who should give consent, or the ethicist has no access to those involved. We argue that the use of cases in ethics research and teaching can be justified by appeal to the public interest argument, and suggest a number of areas for discussion and clarification. (shrink)

Both living donor transplantation and human subjects research expose one set of individuals to clinical risks for the clinical benefits of others. In the Belmont Report, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavior Research articulated three principles to serve as the basis for a research ethics framework: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. In contrast, living donor transplantation lacks a framework. In this manuscript, we adapt the three principles articulated in the Belmont Report to (...) serve as the foundation for an ethics framework for living donor transplantation which we supplement with the principles of vulnerability and responsibility. The National Commission supported additional protections for vulnerable groups of potential research participants. In 2001, Kenneth Kipnis effectively argued that the concept of vulnerable groups failed to explore in what ways particular groups of people were vulnerable, thereby risking unnecessary protections for some and inadequate protections for others. He proposed a taxonomy that explored different types of vulnerabilities that all research participants may experience to provide a more robust framework for human subjects protections, which we adapt to living donors. Robert Goodin claims that health professionals, who stand in special relationship with patients, are responsible for promoting and protecting their well-being. In living donor transplantation, the donor transplant team is responsible for empowering prospective donors to address their vulnerabilities and/or for protecting those who cannot by disqualifying them from donation. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Objectives: the purpose of this study is to explore laypersons’ attitudes towards and experiences of medical research, and to compare them with those of physicians in Japan. Designs and Participants: fourteen Japanese adults from the general public and seven physicians participated in one of three focus interviews. Setting: Osaka, Japan. Results: trust and distrust in the physician by whom the participants were invited to participate in research played a considerable role in their decisions about participation. That the participants felt (...) an obligation to participate was also expressed. The lay participants perceived medical research as something entirely outside of their world. A greater willingness to volunteer for research was expressed if there were direct benefits to themselves or their families. Research methods such as use of placebos, double blinds, and randomisations seemed to cause negative attitudes to medical research. All physicians were convinced of the need for medical research, including double‐blinded randomised control trials, and its significant role in medical progress. Most physicians thought that the greater awareness of the need for medical research in the community and a better understanding of the psychology of potential research participants were necessary and urgent. Conclusions: there is a good possibility that the lay public and medical professionals have sharply different beliefs about and attitudes towards every aspect of medical research. Building up a better and equal patient‐doctor relationship based on trust is a key issue in medical research, and it is mandatory to fill the gap in perception regarding medical research between them through fully informed debates. (shrink)

Failures in research ethics review examinedThe recent tragic death of Ellen Roche1 provides valuable lessons for research ethics review. The reasons for the wrongful administration of hexamethonium stem from researchers failing to act in certain ways, not from deliberate malicious or negligent actions.FIRST FAILING AND FIRST LESSON: PUBLICATION BIASThe first major failing was the failure of researchers who conducted the 1978 San Francisco study of hexamethonium to report similar adverse reactions.The tendency of researchers to fail to publish disappointing results2 or (...) results which are unattractive to them or their sponsors' interests has been well documented.3 It is called publication bias. An important part of publication bias is the failure to report all relevant or potentially relevant results. As this case illustrates, researchers must report or make available all research results, even negative results, and all potentially relevant outcomes of that research. If researchers believe an adverse event is unrelated to the study, they should explain why they believe this rather than omitting the event from their report. Elimination of publication bias is essential to scientific progress, to the protection of participants in research and in maintaining public faith in the integrity of scientists and doctors. Ethics committees and journals should make it clear that all adverse events—related or unrelated—to a project must be acknowledged, evaluated and further details made available to other researchers or the public if requested.SECOND FAILING: FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SYSTEMATIC REVIEWBut there is a more important failing. The most disturbing feature of this case was that literature documenting the pulmonary toxicity of hexamethonium was available before the trial began.In the study protocol submitted to the ethics committee, the researcher cited four reports involving 20 patients given inhaled hexamethonium without adverse event. However, Johns Hopkins investigators found a number of reports between 1953 and 1962, …. (shrink)

Purposeful infection of healthy volunteers with a microbial pathogen seems at odds with acceptable ethical standards, but is an important contemporary research avenue used to study infectious diseases and their treatments. Generally termed ‘controlled human infection studies’, this research is particularly useful for fast tracking the development of candidate vaccines and may provide unique insight into disease pathogenesis otherwise unavailable. However, scarce bioethical literature is currently available to assist researchers and research ethics committees in negotiating the distinct issues raised by (...) research involving purposefully infecting healthy volunteers. In this article, we present two separate challenge studies and highlight the ethical issues of human challenge studies as seen through a well-constructed framework. Beyond the same stringent ethical standards seen in other areas of medical research, we conclude that human challenge studies should also include: independent expert reviews, including systematic reviews; a publicly available rationale for the research; implementation of measures to protect the public from spread of infection beyond the research setting; and a new system for compensation for harm. We hope these additions may encourage safer and more ethical research practice and help to safeguard public confidence in this vital research alternative in years to come. (shrink)