Does setting good practice standards for research ethics committees increase their legal liability?

BMJ

Volumn 314, Issue 7097, 1997, Pages 1833-

  Savulescu, Julian ^a   Chalmers, Iain ^b   Blunt, Jennifer ^c  

^a OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b NHS Res and Development Programme   (United Kingdom)

^c Salford and Trafford Hlth Authority   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; LEGAL LIABILITY; LETTER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; SKILL; TRAINING; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ETHICS COMMITTEES; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, MEDICAL; LIABILITY, LEGAL; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY;

EID: 0031010552     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7097.1833     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Savulescu J, Chalmers I, Blunt J. Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability BMJ 1996; 313: 1390–1393. (30 November.)
2. Goodman NW, MacGowan A. Are research ethics committees behaving unethically BMJ 1997; 314: 676–677. (1 March.)
3. Brazier M. Liability of ethics committees and their members (1990) PN 186.
4. Freedman B. Multicenter trials and subject eligibility: should local IRBs play a role IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1994; 16: 1–6.