Ethics committee or community? examining the identity of Czech ethics committees in the period of transition

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 36, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 548-552

  Simek, Jiri ^a   Zamykalova, Lenka ^a   Mesanyova, Marie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BOHEMIA   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CZECH REPUBLIC; DEMOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARD;

CZECH REPUBLIC; ETHICS COMMITTEES; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESIDENCE CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 77958095460     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2009.034298     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Whittaker E. Adjudicating entitlements: the emerging discourses of research ethics boards. Health 2005;9:513-35.
2. Šimek J, Šilhanová J, Vrbatová I. Ethics Committees in Czech Republic. In: Glasa J, ed. Ethics Committees in Central & Eastern Europe - Present State & Perspectives for the 21st Century". Bratislava: Conference proceedings, 2000.
3. Šimek L, Zamykalová L, Mesanyová M. Etické komise v České republice. (Ethics committees in the Czech Republic). Prakt Lek 2008;88:3-5.
4. Davies H, Wells F, Czarkowski M. Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches. J Med Ethics 2009;35:382-3.
5. EFGCP Ethics Working Party. Subgroup on Ethics Committees reviewing investigational medicinal products within the European Union: the procedure for the ethical review of protocols for clinical research projects in the European Union. Int J Pharm Med 2007;21. http://www.efgcp.be/html.asp?what=efgcpreport.htm&L1=5&L2=1#report (accessed April 2010).
6. Hedgecoe A, Carvalho F, Lobmayer P, et al. Research ethics committees in Europe: implementing the directive, respecting diversity. J Med Ethics 2006;32:483-6.
7. Klingmann I. (Project Coordinator) Impact on Clinical Research of European Legislation. HEALTH-F1-2007-201002, Project Final Report. EFGCP, 2009. http://www.efgcp.be/downloads/icrel_docs/Final_report_ICREL.pdf (accessed April 2010).
8. Glasa J, ed. Ethics Committees in Central & Eastern Europe - Present State & Perspectives for the 21st Century". Bratislava: Conference proceedings, 2000.
9. Hedgecoe A. "A Form of Practical Machinery": The Origins of Research Ethics Committees in the UK, 1967-1972. Med Hist 2009;53:331-50.
10. Dixon-Woods M, Angell E, Ashcroft RE, et al. Doing accountability: a discourse analysis of research ethics committee letters. Sociol Health Iln 2009;31:246-61.
11. Dixon-Woods M, Angell E, Ashcroft RE, et al. Written work: the social function of Research ethics committee letter. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:792-802.
12. Dixon-Woods M, Angell EL, Bryman A. An analysis of decision letters by Research ethics committees: the ethics/ scientific quality boundary examined. J Med Ethics 2009;35:130-2.
13. Strauss AL, Corbin J, eds. Grounded Theory in Practice. London: Sage, 1997.
14. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical Guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage, 2006.
15. Caron-Flinterman JL, Broerse JEW, Bunders JFG. Patient partnership in decisionmaking on biomedical research: Changing the network. Sci Technol Human Values 2009;32:339-68.
16. EPPOSI Workshop On Clinical Trials. Shaping the future of European Clinical Trial Legislation. EPPOSI, Brussels 2009. http://www.epposi.org/upl/1/default/doc/Clinical%20Trials%2009%20_%20report.pdf (accessed April 2010).
17. Barke R. Balancing uncertain risks and benefits in human subjects research. Sci Technol Human Values 2009;34:337-64.
18. Mol A. Body multiple: Ontology in Medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002.
19. Mol A. The logic of care. Health and the problem of patient choice. London: Routledge, 2008.
20. Mol A. Proving or improving: On health care research as a form of self-reflection. Qual Health Res 2006;16:405-14.
21. DeMets DL, Fost N, Powers M. An Institutional Review Board dilemma: Responsible for safety monitoring but not in control. Clin Trials 2006;3:142-8.
22. Tailor HA, Chaisson L, Sugarman J. Enhancing communication among data monitoring committee and institutional review boards. Clin Trials 2008;5:277-82.
23. Kant I. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (Religion inerhalb des bloßen Vernunft). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
24. Wood AW. Religion, Ethical Community and the Struggle against Evil. Faith Philos 2000;17:498-511.
25. Haas P. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Organ 1992;46:1-35.
26. Salter B, Jones M. Biobanks and bioethics: The politics of legitimation. Journal of European Public Policy 2005;12:710-32.
27. Wenger E, Snyder W. Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harv Bus Rev 2000 (January-February):139-45.
28. Avard D, et al. Research Ethics Boards and challenges for public participation. Health Law Rev 2009;17:66-73.
29. Kelly S. Public Bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries and Participation in Biomedical science policy. Sci Technol Human Values 2003;28:339-64.