» Articles » PMID: 16943338

Trust Based Obligations of the State and Physician-researchers to Patient-subjects

Overview
Journal J Med Ethics
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2006 Sep 1
PMID 16943338
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When may a physician enroll a patient in clinical research? An adequate answer to this question requires clarification of trust-based obligations of the state and the physician-researcher respectively to the patient-subject. The state relies on the voluntarism of patient-subjects to advance the public interest in science. Accordingly, it is obligated to protect the agent-neutral interests of patient-subjects through promulgating standards that secure these interests. Component analysis is the only comprehensive and systematic specification of regulatory standards for benefit-harm evaluation by research ethics committees (RECs). Clinical equipoise, a standard in component analysis, ensures the treatment arms of a randomised control trial are consistent with competent medical care. It thus serves to protect agent-neutral welfare interests of the patient-subject. But REC review occurs prior to enrolment, highlighting the independent responsibility of the physician-researcher to protect the agent-relative welfare interests of the patient-subject. In a novel interpretation of the duty of care, we argue for a "clinical judgment principle" which requires the physician-researcher to exercise judgment in the interests of the patient-subject taking into account evidence on treatments and the patient-subject's circumstances.

Citing Articles

Taking the principle of the primacy of the human being seriously.

Rozynska J Med Health Care Philos. 2021; 24(4):547-562.

PMID: 34318429 PMC: 8557179. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-021-10043-2.


Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research.

Graham M, Hallowell N, Solberg B, Haukkala A, Holliday J, Kerasidou A J Med Ethics. 2021; 47(10):689-696.

PMID: 33441306 PMC: 8479733. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106941.


"Why Don't You Go Into Suburbs? Why Are You Targeting Us?": Trust and Mistrust in HIV Vaccine Trials in South Africa.

Thabethe S, Slack C, Lindegger G, Wilkinson A, Wassenaar D, Kerr P J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018; 13(5):525-536.

PMID: 30417754 PMC: 6238163. DOI: 10.1177/1556264618804740.


Ethical Considerations in Ending Exploratory Brain-Computer Interface Research Studies in Locked-in Syndrome.

Klein E, Peters B, Higger M Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018; 27(4):660-674.

PMID: 30198467 PMC: 8219386. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180118000154.


A Defense of The-Risks-of-Daily-Life.

Binik A Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017; 27(3):413-442.

PMID: 28989167 PMC: 5691379. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2017.0033.


References
1.
Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady C . What makes clinical research ethical?. JAMA. 2000; 283(20):2701-11. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701. View

2.
Weijer C, SHAPIRO S, Cranley Glass K . For and against: clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2000; 321(7263):756-8. PMC: 1127868. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.321.7263.756. View

3.
Kopelman L . Children as research subjects: a dilemma. J Med Philos. 2001; 25(6):745-64. DOI: 10.1076/jmep.25.6.723.6129. View

4.
Miller P, Weijer C . Moral solutions in assessing research risk. IRB. 2002; 22(5):6-10. View

5.
Lemmens T, Miller P . Avoiding a Jekyll-and-Hyde approach to the ethics of clinical research and practice. Am J Bioeth. 2002; 2(2):14-7. DOI: 10.1162/152651602317533550. View