Proportional ethical review and the identification of ethical issues

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 241-245

  Hunter, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOETHICS; DECISION MAKING; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOETHICAL ISSUES; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICAL THEORY; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; JUDGMENT; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATE MEDICINE; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 34247177049     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2006.016782     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Department of Health. Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees. June 2005. http:// www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/11/24/17/04112417.pdf (accessed 28 Feb 2006).
2. Economic and Social Research Council. Research Ethics Frame Work. July 2005. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/images/ ESRC_Re_Ethics_Frame_tcm6-11291.pdf (accessed 28 Feb 2006).
3. University of Ulster. Policy for the governance of research involving human subjects and the accompanying procedures. http:// www.ulster.ac.uk/research/rg/docs/d∝licy.pdf (accessed 28 Feb 2006).
4. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Implementing the recommendations of the Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees: a consultation. January 2006: 1, 2, 13, 15, 16, http://www.corec.org.uk/consultation/ ImplementationPlanConsultation.pdf (accessed 28 Feb 2006).
5. Sounders J. Research ethics committees-time for change? Clin Med JRCPL 2002;2:534-8.
6. Blunt J, Savulescu J, Watson AJM. Meeting the challenges facing research ethics committees: some practical suggestions. BMJ 1998;316:58-61.
7. Anon. Scottish Ethics Advisory Group. http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/ cso/AboutCSO/Ethics/FinalSEAGReport.pdf (accessed 28 Feb 2006).
8. World Medical Association. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects (Declaration of Helsinki), last updated Tokyo, 2004. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/63.htm (accessed 28 Feb 2006).
9. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Summary of comments on AHAG Report, January 2006:4. http://www.corec.org.uk/recs/docs/ Summary_of_Comments_on_AHAG_Report.doc (accessed 28 Feb 2006).
10. Association of Research Ethics Committees. AREC Council Response to "Implementing the recommendations of the Report of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees: a consultation". COREC/NPSA publication January 2006. April 2006. http://www.arec.org.uk/table_consultations.htm (accessed 12 May 2006).
11. National Alliance on Mental illness. http://www.nami.org/Content/ NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_Mental_Illness/About_Research/
12. Edwards SJ, Kirchin S, Huxtable R. Research ethics committees and paternalism. J Med Ethics 2004;30:88-91.
13. Garrard E, Dawson A. What is the role of the research ethics committee? Paternalism, inducements, and harm in research ethics. J Med Ethics 2005;31:419-23.
14. Scofield G. Commentary: the Wizard of Oughts. J Law, Med Ethics. 2000;28: 232-5, 234.
15. Edwards SJL, Ashcroft R, Kirchin S. Research Ethics Committees: differences and moral judgement. Bioethics 2004;18:408-27.
16. BBC News. Six taken ill after drug trials, 2006. http:// news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4807042.stm (accessed on 15 Mar 2006).
17. Berg S, Nurmi H. Group decision quality and social choice theory. Group Decision Negotiation 1996;5:208.
18. Koch T, Ridgley M. The Condorcet's Jury theorem in a bioethical context: the dynamics of group decision making. Group Decision Negotiation 2000;9:379-92.
19. List C, Goodin, R. E. Epistemic dDemocracy: gGeneralizing the Condorcet Jury fTheorem, J Political Philos 2001;9:277-306.
20. Koch T, Ridgley M. The Condorcet's jury theorem in a bioethical context: the dynamics of group decision making. Group Decision Negotiation 2000;9:380.
21. COREC ethics consultation e-group. Differentiating audit, service evaluation and research. October 2005. http://www.corec.org.uk/recs/ training/docs/ls_and_As_Differentiating_Research.doc (accessed 17 May 2006).