Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Part 5, the concluding essay in the series describing and discussing the role, remit and function of research ethics committees, bases an enquiry into the nature of decision-making by research ethics committees on the processes followed by the committees in their deliberations leading to the final outcome.

References

Hill

. Respect, pluralism and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000.

Department of Health, UK. 2001. The Role of RECs, Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees. Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. Available at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/research.

Edwards

SJL

Ashcroft

Kirchin

. Are discrepancies between research ethics committees always morally problematic? Bioethics 2004; 18(4): 408–427.

Buchanan

Huczynski

. Organisational behaviour, introductory text. 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 1997.

Beauchamp

Childress

. Principles of biomedical ethics. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1994 pp92–99.

Moreno

. Deciding together. Bioethics and moral consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1995.

Daniels

. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ 2000; 321: 1300–1301.

European Forum for Good Clinical Practice. Guidance for auditing quality systems of independent ethics committees in Europe 2008 http://www.efgcp.be/downloads/EFGCP%20IEC%20Audit%20Guidance%2014%20October2008.pdf.

National Research Ethics Service Shared Ethics Debate pilot 2007 available at: http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/rec-community/quality-assurance/shared-ethicaldebate/.

10.

National Research Ethics Service Resubmissions and Appeals 2011 available at: http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/applications/resubmission-and-appeals/.

The Role,Remit and Function of the Research Ethics Committee — 5. Collective Decision-Making and Research Ethics Committees

Abstract

References