Voluntariness in clinical research at the end of life

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2003, Pages

  Agrawal, Manish ^a,b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Coercion; End of life; Exploitation; Voluntariness; Vulnerability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL ASPECT; TERMINAL DISEASE; VALIDATION PROCESS; VOLUNTEER;

EID: 0037384715     PISSN: 08853924     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0885-3924(03)00057-5     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Berg J.W., Appelbaum P.S., Lidz C.W., Parker L.S. Informed consent. legal theory and clinical practice:2001;Oxford University Press, New York.
2. Nelson R.M., Merz J.F. Voluntariness of consent for research. an empirical and conceptual review Med Care. 40:2002;V69-V80.
3. Hewlett S.E. Is consent to participate in research voluntary? Arthritis Care Res. 9:1996;400-404.
4. Roberts L.W. Informed consent and the capacity for voluntarism. Am J Psychiatry. 159:2002;705-712.
5. Sugarman J., McCrory D.C., Hubal R.C. Getting meaningful informed consent from older adults. a structured literature review of empirical research J Am Geriatr Soc. 46:1998;517-524.
6. Abdool Karim Q., Abdool Karim S.S., Coovadia H.M., Susser M. Informed consent for HIV testing in a South African hospital. is it truly informed and truly voluntary? Am J Public Health. 88:1998;637-640.
7. Katz J. The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial. A reappraisal. JAMA. 276:1996;1662-1666.
8. The Nuremberg Code JAMA. 276:1996;1691.
9. Emanuel E.J., Wendler D., Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 283:2000;2701-2711.
10. Faden R, Beauchamp T. Coercion, manipulation, and perusasion. In: A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986:337-381.
11. Wertheimer A. Coercion. 1987;Princeton University Press, Princeton.
12. Hawkins JS, Emanuel EJ. Clarifying confusions about coercion. Manuscript, 2002.
13. US Department of Health and Human Services. Protections of human subjects, 1991.
14. Kipnis K. Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission 2001:G1-13.
15. Van Luijn H.E., Musschenga A.W., Keus R.B.et al. Assessment of the risk/benefit ratio of phase II cancer clinical trials by Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. Ann Oncol. 13:2002;1307-1313.
16. Epstein A.M., Hall J.A., Tognetti J.et al. Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Can they provide valid information about patients' health status and satisfaction with medical care? Med Care. 27:1989;S91-S98.
17. McCusker J., Stoddard A.M. Use of a surrogate for the Sickness Impact Profile. Med Care. 22:1984;789-795.
18. Magaziner J., Simonsick E.M., Kashner T.M., Hebel J.R. Patient-proxy response comparability on measures of patient health and functional status. J Clin Epidemiol. 41:1988;1065-1074.
19. Rubenstein L.Z., Schairer C., Wieland G.D., Kane R. Systematic biases in functional status assessment of elderly adults. effects of different data sources J Gerontol. 39:1984;686-691.
20. Zweibel N.R., Cassel C.K. Treatment choices at the end of life. a comparison of decisions by older patients and their physician-selected proxies Gerontologist. 29:1989;615-621.
21. Appelbaum P.S., Lidz C.W., Meisel A. Legal theory and clinical practice. 1987;Oxford University Press, New York.
22. Parker L.S., Lidz C.W. Familial coercion to participate in genetic family studies. is there cause for IRB intervention? IRB. 16:1994;6-12.