Legitimate requests and indecent proposals: Matters of justice in the ethical assessment of phase I trials involving competent patients

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 205-208

  Kong, W M ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BENEFICENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPETENCE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; JUSTICE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT RIGHT; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RESPONSIBILITY; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL ASPECT; VOLUNTEER;

ANALYTICAL APPROACH; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ALTRUISM; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I; ETHICS, CLINICAL; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; VALUE OF LIFE;

EID: 17444376840     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2003.006684     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Cregan JA. Light, fast and flexible: a new approach to regulation of human gene therapy. McGeorge Law Review 2000; 32 261-300, 278.
2. Kuszler PC. Curing conflicts of interest in clinical research: impossible dreams and harsh realities. Widener Law Symposium Journal 2001;8:115-53.
3. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects on Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of humans subjects 1979;43 Federal Register: 11328-58.
4. O'Neill O. Autonomy, individuality and consent. In: O'Neill O, ed. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002:28-48.
5. Department of Health. Local research ethics committees 1991. (HSG (91)5): 11, United Kingdom: Department of Health, 1991.
6. Brody B. Appendix 3.1, Federal policy for the protection of human subjects (1991) 45 CFR 46 subpart A, at §46. 111 (2). In: Brody B, ed. The ethics of biomedical research: an international perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998:261-280.
7. Dworkin R. Does equality matter? In: Dworkin R, ed. Sovereign virtue. The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000:1-11.
8. Royal College of Physicians. Appendix A, Development and official regulation of medicines. In: Guidelines on the practice of ethical committees in medical research involving human subjects, edn. London: Royal College of Physicians, 1996:52-53.
9. R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 at 266 F-G per Lord Mustill.
10. Jonas H. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus 1969:218-247.
11. Walzer M. Security and Welfare. In: Walzer M, ed. Spheres of justice: a defence of pluralism and equality. Oxford: Martin Robertson & Company Ltd, 1983:64-94.
12. Sommerville A. Informed consent and human rights in medical research. In: Doyal L, Tobias J, eds. Informed consent in medical research. London: BMJ Books, 2001:249-56.
13. Papanikolaw J. Waiting for the fruits of gene therapy. Chemical Market Reporter 2000;257:FR17.
14. Savulescu J. Two deaths and two lessons: is it time to review the structure and function of research ethics committees? J Med Ethics 2002;28:1-2.
15. Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, et al. Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:1062-72.
16. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) Subject Interview Study. In: Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: final report, edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996:459-81.
17. Dresser R. Hope versus hypothesis testing: expanded access to experimental interventions. In: Dresser R, ed. When science offers salvation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001:48-70.