Ethics of innovative surgery: US surgeon's definitions, knowledge, and attitudes

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Volumn 200, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 103-110

  Reitsma, Angelique M ^a   Moreno, Jonathan D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL ETHICS; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SURGEON; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL THERAPY; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; SURGERY;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; SPECIALTIES, SURGICAL; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE; THERAPIES, INVESTIGATIONAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 13844299607     PISSN: 10727515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.09.032     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Spodick DH. Numerators without denominators. There is no FDA for the surgeon. JAMA 1975;232:35-36.
2. Beecher HK. Surgery as placebo. A quantitative study of bias. JAMA 1961;176:1102-1107.
3. Agich GJ. Ethics and innovation in medicine. J Med Ethics 2001;27:295-296.
4. Anonymous author. Qualms about innovative surgery. Lancet 1985;1:149.
5. Bunch WH, Dvonch VM. Moral decisions regarding innovation. The case method. Clin Orthop 2000:44-49.
6. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996;347:984.
7. Jones RS, Richards K. Office of Evidence-Based Surgery charts course for improved system of care. Bull Am Coll Surg 2003;88:11-21.
8. Ward CM. Surgical research, experimentation and innovation. Br J Plast Surg 1994;47:90-94.
9. Moore FD. Ethical problems special to surgery: surgical teaching, surgical innovation, and the surgeon in managed care. Arch Surg 2000;135:14-16.
10. Margo CE. When is surgery research? Towards an operational definition of human research. J Med Ethics 2001;27:40-43.
11. Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA. Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:938-948.
12. Rutan RL, Deitch EA, Waymack JP. Academic surgeons' knowledge of Food and Drug Administration regulations for clinical trials. Arch Surg 1997;132:94-98.
13. Reitsma AM, Moreno JD. Ethical regulations for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg 2002;194:792-801.
14. Angeles P, Lafreniere R, Murphy T, Rosen W. Ethical issues in surgical treatment and research. Curr Probl Surg 2003;40:345-448.
15. Bunker JP, Hinkley D, McDermott WV. Surgical innovation and its evaluation. Science 1978;200:937-941.
16. Casier JD. Clinical use of new technologies without scientific studies. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003;129:674-677.
17. Cronin DC 2nd, Millis JM, Siegler M. Transplantation of liver grafts from living donors into adults-too much, too soon. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1633-1637.
18. Dossetor JB. Innovative treatment versus clinical research: an ethics issue in transplantation. Transplant Proc 1990;22:966-968.
19. Frader JE, Caniano DA. Research and innovation in surgery. In: McCullough LB, Jones JW, Brody BA, eds. Surgical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998:216-241.
20. Frader JE, Flanagan-Klygis E. Innovation and research in pediatric surgery. Semin Pediatr Surg 2001;10:198-203.
21. Gross M. Innovations in surgery. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1993; 75-B:351-354.
22. McKneally MF. Ethical problems in surgery: innovation leading to unforeseen complications. World J Surg 1999;23:786-788.
23. Reitsma AM. Regulating innovative surgery. Thesis. University of Virginia Graduate School Arts and Sciences, January 2004.
24. Waring GO 3rd. A cautionary tale of innovation in refractive surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:1069-1073.
25. Noah L. Informed consent and the elusive dichotomy between standard and experimental therapy. Am J Law Med 2002;28: 361-408.
26. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 2000.
27. Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed questionnaires. Health Services Res 2001; 35:1347-1355.
28. Food and Drug Administration. Available at: http://www.fda. gov/ Accessed May 1, 2004.
29. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/pl104191.htm Accessed May 1, 2004.
30. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46. Available at: http://ohrp.osophs. dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm Accessed May 1, 2004.
31. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ Accessed May 1, 2004.
32. Office of Human Research Protections. Available at http://ohrp.osophs. dhhs.gov/ Accessed May 1, 2004.
33. McKneally MF. Surgical innovation. Panel presentation. American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Annual Meeting. Montreal, Canada, November 2003.
34. Kornetsky S. Guidelines, concepts and procedures for differentiating between research and innovative therapy. 2001; Children's Hospital, Boston MA.
35. Lilford RL, Braunholtz DA, Greenhalgh R, Edwards SJL. Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studies. BMJ 2000;320:43-46.