Monitoring informed consent in an oncology study posing serious risk to subjects

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 1-6

  Skrutkowski, Myrian ^a   Weijer, Charles ^b   Shapiro, Stan ^a   Fuks, Abraham ^a   Langleben, Adrian ^a   Freedman, Benjamin ^c  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BREAST TUMOR; CANADA; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FREEDOM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; MCGILL UNIVERSITY; PATIENT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RISK; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; MCGILL UNIVERSITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANADA; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS; ETHICS COMMITTEES; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; EVALUATION STUDIES; FEMALE; FREEDOM; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PATIENTS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; RISK; TERMINALLY ILL; WOMEN;

EID: 0032195151     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3564412     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Langleben A. Dose intensification therapy for breast cancer management (a phase II clinical trial), McG 9506. McGill Department of Oncology, McGill University, 1995.
2. 45 CFR 46.111(b).
3. Weijer C, Shapiro S, Fuks A, Glass KC, Skrutkowska M. Monitoring clinical research: an obligation unfulfilled. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995; 152:1973-80.
4. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Institutional Review Boards: Report and Recommendations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, DHEW Pub. No. (OS)78-0008, 1978, p. 13.
5. 45 CFR 46.109(e) and 45 CFR 46.113.
6. Office for Protection from Research Risks. Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993: 3.47.
7. Levine RJ. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988:348.
8. Gray BH, Cook RA, Tannenbaum AS. Research involving human subjects. Science. 1978; 201:1094-1101.
9. Robertson JA. Taking consent seriously: IRB intervention in the consent process. IRB 1982; 4(5):1-5.
10. Hayes GJ, Hayes SC, Dykstra, T. A survey of university institutional review boards: characteristics, policies and procedures. IRB 1995; 17(3):1-6.
11. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research. Protecting and promoting the human research subject: a review of the function of research ethics boards in Canadian faculties of medicine. NCBHR Communique Journal 1995; 6(1):3-32.
12. McNeil PM, Berglund CA, and Webster IW. Reviewing the reviewers: a survey of institutional ethics committees. Medical Journal of Australia 1990; 152:289-96.
13. Thompson IE, French K, Melia KM, et al. Research committees in Scotland. British Medical Journal 1981; 282:718-20.
14. Bosso JA. Deliberations of the Utah Institutional Review Board concerning the artificial heart. In: Shaw MW, After Barney Clark. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1994:139-45.
15. Wooley FR. Ethical issues in the implantation of the total artificial heart. NEJM 1984; 310:292-6.
16. Christakis NA. Should IRBs monitor research more strictly? IRB 1988; 10(2):8-10.
17. The NIH report of its review of the Baby Fae case. IRB 1986; 8(2):1-4.
18. Faden RR, Lewis C, Rimer B. Monitoring informed consent procedures: an exploratory record review. IRB 1980; 2(8):9-10.
19. See note 3, Weijer et al. 1995.
20. See note 9, Robertson 1982.
21. Shannon TA, and Ockene IS. Approving the high risk, rejecting the low risk: the case of two cases. IRB 1985;7(1):6-8.
22. McGrath K, Briscoe RJ. The role of the subject advocate in a community-based medical research facility. IRB 1981; 3(3):6-7.
23. See note 10, Hayes et al. 1995.
24. Weijer C. Our bodies, our science. The Sciences 1995; 35(3):41-5.
25. Bramel D, Friend R. Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias in psychology. American Psychologist 1981; 36:867-78.
26. See note 7, Levine 1988:137.
27. Woodward WE. Informed consent of volunteers: a direct measurement of comprehension and retention of information. Clinical Research 1979; 310:248-52.
28. Phillips DF. Institutional review boards under stress: will they explode or change? JAMA 1996; 276:1623-6.
29. Caplan AL. Random-sampling: a modest proposal for reforming IRB review. IRB 1982; 4(6):8.