According to The Belmont Report, the prior assessment of potential risks and benefits is essential in determining whether a subject ought to participate in research. This article will present a review of the risks and benefits to which research subjects are exposed, followed by a short summary of the philosophical and ethical thinking underlying these issues. The application of the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence to the issues of minimizing risk and maximizing benefit might be achieved more effectively by changes in how the consent information letter is usually organized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare; 1979. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/belmont.php3. (Accessed Jan 22, 2004).
2.
International Conference on Harmonisation.Note for Guidance on Good Clinical Practice. ICH Topic E 6. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. London, United Kingdom: The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products; 1996. http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/press/pr/093895en.pdf. (Accessed Jan 22, 2004).
3.
HabgoodJAn Anglican view of the four principles. In GillonR, ed. Principles of Health Care Ethics.Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1994.
4.
WeijerCThe ethical analysis of risk. J Law Med Ethics.2000;28:344–361.
5.
PrenticeE DGordonBGInstitutional Review Board Assessment of Risks and Benefits Associated with Research. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants.Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 2001. http://onlineethics.org/resetVnbac/Tiprentice.html. (Accessed Jan 22, 2004).
6.
LevineRJEthics and Regulations of Clinical Research.2nd ed.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1988.
7.
KinseyACPomeroyWBMartinCESexual Behavior in the Human Male.Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1948.
8.
KinseyACPomeroyWBMartinCESexual Behavior in the Human Female.Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1953.
9.
PearsallJTrumbleB, eds. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary.Oxford, United Kingtom: Oxford University Press; 1996.
10.
King NMR Defining and describing benefit appropriately in clinical trials.J Law Med Ethics.2000;28:332–343.
11.
LexchinJAfter compulsory licensing: Coming issues in Canadian pharmaceutical policy and politics. Health Policy.1997;40:69–80.
12.
SibbaldBDrug patent protection: How long is long enough?Can Med Assoc J.2001;164:164.
13.
AnisAHPharmaceutical policies in Canada: Another example of federal-provincial discord. Can Med Assoc J.2000;162:523–526.
14.
LidzCWAppelbaumPSThe therapeutic misconception. Problems and solutions. Med Care.2002;40:V55–V63.
15.
AppelbaumPSRothLHLidzCWBensonPWinsladeW.False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception. Hastings Center Report; 1987;17:20–24.
16.
AppelbaumPSExamining the ethics of human subjects research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J.1996;6: 283–287.
17.
AppelbaumPSClarifying the ethics of clinical research: A path toward avoiding the therapeutic misconception. Am J Bioethics.2002;2:22–23.
18.
BoskCLObtaining voluntary consent for research in desperately ill patients. Med Care.2002;40:V64–V68.
19.
KassNSugarmanJFadenRTrust: The Fragile Foundation of Contemporary Biomedical Research. Hastings Center Report; 1996;26:25–29.
20.
LevineRJWorld Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. In Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research.2nd ed.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1988; 427–430.
21.
SchuklenkUAshcroftRInternational research ethics. Bioethics.2000;14:158–172.
22.
World Medical Association.Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.Edinburgh, Scotland: The 52nd World Medical Association General Assembly; 2000.
FreedmanBEquipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New Engl J Med.1987;317:141–145.
25.
WeijerCShapiroSHGlassKGFor: Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinnings of the randomised controlled trial. Br Med J.2000;321:756–758.
26.
EnkinMWAgainst: Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial. Br Med J.2000;321:756–758.
27.
HauerwasSEthical issues in the use of human subjects. In HauerwasSSuffering Presence. Theological Reflections on Medicine, the Mentally Handicapped, and the Church.Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press; 1986.
28.
KantI.The categorical imperative. In SingerP, ed. Ethics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1994.
29.
Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus.Glasgow, United Kingdom: Harper Collins Publishers; 1994.
30.
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Ethical Decision Making.Santa Clara, Calif: Santa Clara University; 2003. www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html. (Accessed Jan 22, 2004).
31.
CareNSIndividualism, moral and political. In HonerichT, ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
32.
BenthamJThe principle of utility. In SingerP, ed. Ethics.Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1994.
33.
BedauHAPaternalism. In HonerichT, ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1995.
34.
BuchananACommunity and communiterianism. In Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.CraigE (ed). London, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2000.
35.
FrazerEJCommunitarianism. HonerichT, ed. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
36.
LanganJCommon good. In ChildressJFMacQuarrieJ, eds. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics.Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press; 1986.
KasenePAfrican ethical theory and the four principles. In GillonR, ed. Principles of Health Care Principles.Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons; 1994.
39.
Van NessPHThe concept of risk in biomedical research involving human subjects. Bioethics2001;15:364–370.
40.
UbelPAIs information always a good thing? Helping patients make “good'’ decisions. Med Care.2002;40:V39–V44.
