This series of articles argues for a different relationship between investigators and subjects of clinical research based on partnership in shared aims and recognition, by each, of their duties within this partnership. This second essay describes how those duties arise and explores the basis on which, and by and to whom, they are owed. The conclusion that patients have duties in research raises a number of moral issues which, ultimately, question the concept of consent. Discussion of these will be continued in future articles.
References
1.
SteinerTJ. Guinea pig duties: 1. The need for clinical research. Res Ethics Rev2005; 1: 5–12.
2.
RoyDJ in: Development of new medicines: ethical questions, ed ChampeyYLevineRYLietmanPS. London: Royal Society of Medicine1989, p 25.
3.
British Medical Association. Medical ethics today: its practice and philosophy. London: BMA1993, p 201.
4.
KantI. Foundations of the metaphysics of morals, transl BeckLW. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill1959.
5.
BeauchampTL in: Contemporary issues in bioethics, 3rd edition, ed BeauchampTLWalterLeR. Belmont CA: Wadsworth1989, pp 22–24.
6.
EvansD. Why should we care?Basingstoke: Macmillan1990, p 1.
7.
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Helsinki, Finland: 18th WMA, 1964, rev Tokyo, Japan: 29th WMA, 1975; Venice, Italy: 35th WMA, 1983; Hong Kong: 41st WMA, 1989; Somerset West, South Africa: 48th WMA, 1996; Edinburgh, Scotland: 52nd WMA, 2000.
8.
FaulderC. Whose body is it? The troubling issue of informed consent. London: Virago Press1985, p 48.
9.
WalterLeR in: Contemporary issues in bioethics, Op. cit., p 416.
10.
EisenbergL in: Contemporary issues in bioethics, Ibid., pp 425–432.
11.
BeauchampTL in: Contemporary issues in bioethics, Ibid., pp 30–32.
12.
SkiffingtonD in: Why should we care? Op. cit., p 90.
13.
Royal College of Physicians. Research involving patients. London: RCP1990, p 3.
14.
BaumM in: Ethics and law in health care and research, ed ByrneP. Chichester: John Wiley1990, p 1.
15.
ColeridgeLCJ in R v Instan [1893] 1 QB at 453, cited by MasonJKMcCall SmithRA. Law and medical ethics, 3rd edition. London: Butterworths1991, facing title page.
16.
D'ArcyE. Human acts: an essay in their moral evaluation. Oxford: Clarendon Press1963, pp 5657.
17.
FreedenM. Rights. Buckingham: Open Univ Press1991, pp 76–82.
18.
HarrisJ. Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics2005; 31: 242–248.