Guinea Pig Duties: 8. Another Way

Abstract

This series of articles have explored the need that society has for clinical research to be done and the consequent sets of duties that call on the one hand upon investigators to carry it out and on the other upon patients to be subjects of it. The purpose of the discussions has been to understand what should be the relationship between investigators and patient-subjects in order that both might meet their obligations effectively, efficiently, safely and with mutual respect. Here I reach my conclusions.

References

Steiner

. Guinea pig duties: 7. Contingent rights of patients in clinical research. Res Ethics Rev 2006; 2: 85–91.

Steiner

. Guinea pig duties: 1. The need for clinical research. Res Ethics Rev 2005; 1: 5–12.

Steiner

. Guinea pig duties: 2. The origin of patients’ duties in clinical research. Res Ethics Rev 2005; 1: 45–52.

Steiner

. Guinea pig duties: 3. The nature of patients’ duties in clinical research. Res Ethics Rev 2005; 1: 84–89.

Steiner

. Guinea pig duties: 4. The extent and limits of patients’ duties in clinical research. Res Ethics Rev 2005; 1: 115–121.

Steiner

. Guinea pig duties: 5. Coercion and inducement into clinical research. Res Ethics Rev 2006; 2: 3–9.

Ingelfinger

. Informed (but uneducated) consent. JAMA 1982; 248: 344–348.

Glover

. Causing death and saving lives. Harmondsworth: Penguin 1990, pp 80–82.

Nagel

. What does it all mean? New York: Oxford Univ Press 1987, pp 73–75.

10.

MacLean

. The elimination of morality. London: Routledge 1993, pp 187–201.

11.

Kennedy

. The unmasking of medicine: a searching look at health care today. London: George Allen and Unwin 1981 repr Granada 1983, p.29.

12.

Ramsey

. The patient as person. Explorations in medical ethics. New Haven 1970, p 11.

13.

Steiner

. Guinea pig duties: 6. Non-consensual clinical research. Res Ethics Rev 2006; 2: 51–58.