The ethical problems of the open label extension study

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 410-414

  Micetich, Kenneth Craig ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO;

ARTICLE; BENEFICENCE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

BENEFICENCE; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; DISCLOSURE; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, MEDICAL; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PLACEBOS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; THERAPEUTIC HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION;

EID: 0030157722     PISSN: 09631801     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0963180100007210     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. 45 CFR 46.111, a-2. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1991.
2. Minogue BP, Palmer-Fernandez G, Udell L, Waller, BN. Individual autonomy and the double-blind controlled experiment: the case of desperate volunteers. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1995;20:43-55.
3. Coughlin SS, Beauchamp TL. Ethics, scientific validity and the design of epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 1992;3:343-7.