Research Ethics

In a series of articles, I set out my belief that investigators and subjects of research should work together in a partnership based in shared aims. Such a relationship – quite different from what is usual today – would impose duties on both partners. In earlier papers I explored the origin and nature of the duties that would fall on patients; here I examine their limits.

There is a view, expressed by some research ethics committees and health care professionals, that research should not, under any circumstance, be performed on dying patients. This paper begins to explore current attitudes towards palliative care research, although it becomes clear that the issues discussed apply to all fields of bio-medical research. Indeed the underlying principles of autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice should apply to all groups of human subjects involved across all areas of research. The ethical principles should apply equally to healthy individuals as well as to those suffering from ill health, whether this be inherited or acquired, curable or terminal.

The Mental Capacity Act will come into force in 2007. It sets out guidelines for the ethical review of research involving incompetent adults which will have an impact on the REC process. This paper attempts to explain the Act's requirements in a way that will give research ethics committees some clarity about what must be considered when reviewing applications. Potential difficulties have been highlighted with guidance as to how these might be resolved.

This case study appeared in full in the last issue of Research Ethics Review (2005; 1(3): 106–107). It concerned an observational study, using video, of patient safety procedures in the theatre transfer bay. The lead researcher would conduct the study in his own department, a neighbouring NHS Trust and a local independent hospital.

The use of lay members on research ethics committees has for some time been felt to be an example of good practice in ethical review processes. In this paper, written by a lay member, the author considers what the recruitment process for lay members might be and argues how this process should largely be shaped by what role the lay member is recruited to undertake. In considering the advantages and disadvantages of lay members, the author shows that defining the role of a lay member is not straightforward but is necessary to the good working of a research ethics committee.