Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Must research participants understand randomization?David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):3 – 8.
    In standard medical care, physicians select treatments for patients based on clinical judgment, considering which treatment is best for the individual patient, given the patient's history and circumstances. In contrast, investigators conducting randomized clinical trials select treatments for participants based on a random selection process. Because this process represents a significant departure from the norms of standard medical care, it is widely assumed that potential research participants must understand randomization to give valid informed consent. This assumption, together with data that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The Clinical Investigator as Fiduciary: Discarding a Misguided Idea.E. Haavi Morreim - 2005 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33 (3):586-598.
    One of the most important questions in the ethics of human clinical research asks what obligations investigators owe the people who enroll in their studies. Research differs in many ways from standard care - the added uncertainties, for instance, and the nontherapeutic interventions such as diagnostic tests whose only purpose is to measure the effects of the research intervention. Hence arises the question whether a physician engaged in clinical research has the same obligations toward research subjects that he owes his (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • The Clinical Investigator as Fiduciary: Discarding a Misguided Idea.E. Haavi Morreim - 2005 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33 (3):586-598.
    One of the most important questions in the ethics of human clinical research asks what obligations investigators owe the people who enroll in their studies. Research differs in many ways from standard care - the added uncertainties, for instance, and the nontherapeutic interventions such as diagnostic tests whose only purpose is to measure the effects of the research intervention. Hence arises the question whether a physician engaged in clinical research has the same obligations toward research subjects that he owes his (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  • Fiduciary Obligation in Clinical Research.Paul B. Miller & Charles Weijer - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2):424-440.
    Bioethics is currently witnessing unprecedented debate over the moral and legal norms governing the conduct of clinical research. At the center of this debate is the duty of care in clinical research, and its most widely accepted specification, clinical equipoise. In recent work, we have argued that equipoise and cognate concepts central to the ethics of clinical research have been left unnecessarily vulnerable to criticism. We have suggested that the vulnerability lies in the conspicuous absence of an articulated foundation in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • Evaluating the therapeutic misconception.Franklin G. Miller & Steven Joffe - 2006 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (4):353-366.
    : The "therapeutic misconception," described by Paul Appelbaum and colleagues more than 20 years ago, refers to the tendency of participants in clinical trials to confuse the design and conduct of research with personalized medical care. Although the "therapeutic misconception" has become a term of art in research ethics, little systematic attention has been devoted to the ethical significance of this phenomenon. This article examines critically the way in which Appelbaum and colleagues formulate what is at stake in the therapeutic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • A Critique of Clinical Equipoise: Therapeutic Misconception in the Ethics of Clinical Trials.Franklin G. Miller & Howard Brody - 2003 - Hastings Center Report 33 (3):19-28.
    A predominant ethical view holds that physician‐investigators should conduct their research with therapeutic intent. And since a physician offering a therapy wouldn't prescribe second‐rate treatments, the experimental intervention and the best proven therapy should appear equally effective. "Clinical equipoise" is necessary. But this perspective is flawed. The ethics of research and of therapy are fundamentally different, and clinical equipoise should be abandoned.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   126 citations  
  • Autonomy and informed consent: A mistaken association? [REVIEW]Sigurdur Kristinsson - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (3):253-264.
    For decades, the greater part of efforts to improve regulatory frameworks for research ethics has focused on informed consent procedures; their design, codification and regulation. Why is informed consent thought to be so important? Since the publication of the Belmont Report in 1979, the standard response has been that obtaining informed consent is a way of treating individuals as autonomous agents. Despite its political success, the philosophical validity of this Belmont view cannot be taken for granted. If the Belmont view (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Trust in early phase research: therapeutic optimism and protective pessimism.Scott Y. H. Kim, Robert G. Holloway, Samuel Frank, Renee Wilson & Karl Kieburtz - 2008 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11 (4):393-401.
    Bioethicists have long been concerned that seriously ill patients entering early phase (‘phase I’) treatment trials are motivated by therapeutic benefit even though the likelihood of benefit is low. In spite of these concerns, consent forms for phase I studies involving seriously ill patients generally employ indeterminate benefit statements rather than unambiguous statements of unlikely benefit. This seeming mismatch between attitudes and actions suggests a need to better understand research ethics committee members’ attitudes toward communication of potential benefits and risks (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations