The need to explicate the ethical evaluation tools to avoid ethical inflation

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 9, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 56-58

  Bernabe, Rosemarie D C ^a   Van Delden, Johannes J M ^a   Raaijmakers, Jan A M ^b   Van Thiel, Ghislaine J M W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHINA; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ETHICS; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; THAILAND; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

CHINA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; THAILAND; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 73349093137     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160903197606     Document Type: Note

References (9)

1. Bradbury, J. 1989. The policy implications of differing concepts of risks. Science, Technology, & Human Values 14(4): 380-399.
2. Burris, S., and C. Davis. 2009. Assessing social risks prior to commencement of a clinical trial: Due diligence or ethical inflation? American Journal of Bioethics 9(11): 48-54.
3. Hansson, S. O. 2005. Decision Theory: A Brief Introduction. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology.
4. National Institutes of Health. 2005. Regulations and Guidelines on the Protection of Human Subjects. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
5. Shah, S., A. Whittle, B. Wilfond, G. Gensler, and D. Wendler. 2004. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for paediatric research? Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 291(4): 476-482.
6. Shrader-Frechette, K. 1991. Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
7. Van Luijn, H. E. M., N. K. Aaronson, R. B. Keus, and A. W. Musschenga. 2006. The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: A case study. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(3): 170-176.
8. Van Luijn, H. E. M., A. W. Musschenga, R. B. Keus, and N. K. Aaronson. 2007. Evaluating the risks and benefits of phase II and III cancer clinical trials: a look at insitutional review board members in the Netherlands. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 29(1): 13-18.
9. Van Luijn, H. E.M., A.W. Musschenga, R. B. Keus, W.M. Robinson, and N. K. Aaronson. 2002. Assessment of the risk/benefit ratio of phase II cancer clinical trials by Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. Annals of Oncology 13(8): 1307-1313.