International variation in ethics committee requirements: Comparisons across five Westernised nations

BMC Medical Ethics

Volumn 3, Issue , 2002, Pages 1-8

  Goodyear Smith, Felicity ^a   Lobb, Brenda ^a   Davies, Graham ^b   Nachson, Israel ^c   Seelau, Sheila M ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN WHITEWATER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENEFICENCE; CANADA; CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ISRAEL; JUSTICE; NEW ZEALAND; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RELIABILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; STANDARD; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; WITNESS; ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CHILD; CULTURAL FACTOR; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CANADA; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE, SEXUAL; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; ISRAEL; NEW ZEALAND; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0002112226     PISSN: 14726939     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-3-1     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Beauchamp T, Childress J: Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994
2. National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability Services Ethics. National Standard for Ethics Committees. Wellington; 1996
3. Smith R: BMJ's preliminary response to the need for ethics committee approval. BMJ 2000, 320:322-323
4. University of Auckland Human Subjects Ethics Committee. Revised Guidelines for Applicants. Auckland: University of Auckland; 1999
5. Paul C: Health researchers' views of ethics committee functioning in New Zealand. NZMJ 2000, 113:210-4
6. Redshaw ME, Harris A, Baum JD: Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics 1996, 22:78-82
7. Dal-Re R, Espada J, Ortega R: Performance of research ethics committees in Spain. A prospective study of 100 applications for clinical trial protocols on medicines. J Med Ethics 1999, 25:268-73
8. Alberti KG: Local research ethics committees. BMJ 1995, 311:639-40
9. Ahmed AH, Nicholson KG: Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. J Med Ethics 1996, 22:263-6
10. Harries UJ, Fentem PH, Tuxworth W, Hoinville GW: Local research ethics committees. Widely differing responses to a national survey protocol. J R Coll Physicians Lond 1994, 28:150-4
11. Hotopf M, Wessely S, Noah N: Are ethical committees reliable? J R Soc Med 1995, 88:31-3
12. Stone PG, Blogg CF: Local research ethics committees. National research ethics committee is needed. BMJ 1997, 315:60-1
13. Koski G: Risks, benefits, and conflicts of interest in human research: ethical evolution in the changing world of science. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2000, 28:330-1
14. Weijer C: The ethical analysis of risk. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2000, 28:344-61
15. Levine R: Ethics and regulation of clinical research. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988
16. King NM: Defining and describing benefit appropriately in clinical trials. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2000, 28:332-43
17. Chalmers D, Pettit P: Towards a consensual culture in the ethical review of research. Australian Health Ethics Committee. Med J Aust 1998, 168:79-82
18. Wolpe P: The Triumph of Autonomy in American Medical Ethics. In: Bioethics and Society: Sociological Investigations of the Enterprise of Bioethics. 1998, 38-59
19. Childress J: The place of autonomy in bioethics. Hastings Center Report 1990, 20:12-17
20. Gross ML: Autonomy and paternalism in communitarian society. Patient rights in Israel. Hastings Center Report 1999, 29:13-20
21. Savulescu J, Chalmers I, Blunt J: Does setting good practice standards for research ethics committees increase their legal liability? BMJ 1997, 314:1833
22. Goodman NW, MacGowan A: Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? If committees were sued who would be liable? BMJ 1997, 314:676-7
23. Harvey I, Chadwick R: Compensation for harm: the implications for medical research. Soc Sci Med 1992, 34:1399-404
24. Wilson A, Grimshaw G, Baker R, Thompson J: Differentiating between audit and research: postal survey of health authorities' views. BMJ 1999, 319:1235
25. Graham IFM: Audit and research: greater clarity needed. BMJ 1999, 319:1321
26. Choo V: Thin line between research and audit. Lancet 1998, 352:337-8
27. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B: Audit or research? NZMJ 2001, 114:500-502