The institutional review board is the social-oversight mechanism charged with protecting research subjects. Performing this task competently requires that the IRB scrutinize informed-consent procedures, the balance of risks and potential benefits, and subject-selection procedures in research protocols. Unfortunately, it may be said that IRBs are spending too much time editing informed-consent forms and too little time analyzing the risks and potential benefits posed by research. This time mismanagement is clearly reflected in the research ethics literature. A review of articles published (...) between 1979 and 1990 in IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, for example, reveals a large number of articles on informed consent and confidentiality and considerably fewer on the assessment of risks and potential harms, study design, and subject-selection procedures. (shrink)

The institutional review board is the social-oversight mechanism charged with protecting research subjects. Performing this task competently requires that the IRB scrutinize informed-consent procedures, the balance of risks and potential benefits, and subject-selection procedures in research protocols. Unfortunately, it may be said that IRBs are spending too much time editing informed-consent forms and too little time analyzing the risks and potential benefits posed by research. This time mismanagement is clearly reflected in the research ethics literature. A review of articles published (...) between 1979 and 1990 in IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, for example, reveals a large number of articles on informed consent and confidentiality and considerably fewer on the assessment of risks and potential harms, study design, and subject-selection procedures. (shrink)

In this issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Peter Clark provides a comprehensive and sound ethical analysis of clinical trials examining the treatment of advanced Parkinson's disease with fetal tissue transplantation. These studies raise profound questions about how clinical trials of surgical interventions ought to be conducted. At stake is not only the ethical basis of such trials, but differing views as to the proper role of science in medicine and its limitations.Experience with the broader debate on (...) the ethical permissibility of placebo controls has taught us that the choice of control treatment is an aspect of trial design in which ethical and scientific issues overlap. Accordingly, I will highlight, and perhaps expand upon, three issues raised by Clark: What scientific questions ought clinical trials of surgical interventions ask? How should the ethical analysis of risk for such trials be conceived? And, are surgical patients a vulnerable population? (shrink)

In this issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Peter Clark provides a comprehensive and sound ethical analysis of clinical trials examining the treatment of advanced Parkinson's disease with fetal tissue transplantation. These studies raise profound questions about how clinical trials of surgical interventions ought to be conducted. At stake is not only the ethical basis of such trials, but differing views as to the proper role of science in medicine and its limitations.Experience with the broader debate on (...) the ethical permissibility of placebo controls has taught us that the choice of control treatment is an aspect of trial design in which ethical and scientific issues overlap. Accordingly, I will highlight, and perhaps expand upon, three issues raised by Clark: What scientific questions ought clinical trials of surgical interventions ask? How should the ethical analysis of risk for such trials be conceived? And, are surgical patients a vulnerable population? (shrink)

There has been considerable debate about the ethical acceptability of using placebo-controls in clinical research. Although this debate has been rich in rhetoric, considering that much of this research is predicated upon the assumption that data from this research is vital to clinical decision-making, it is ironic that researchers have introduced little data into these discussions. Using some published research concerning the use of placebo-controls in clinical research in hypertension and psychiatric drug trials, I suggest some ways that such data (...) might be incorporated into the ethical analysis concerning placebo use in clinical trials. This approach promises to be important for enhancing conceptual and scientific understanding as well as public policy decision-making. (shrink)

This paper targets an orphan topic in research ethics, namely the so called principle of the primacy of the human being, which states that the interests of the human subject should always take precedence over the interests of science and society. Although the principle occupies the central position in the majority of international ethical and legal standards for biomedical research, it has been commented in the literature mainly in passing. With a few notable exceptions, there is little in-depth discussion about (...) the meaning and role of the principle. Several authors note that the principle is vogue, ambiguous and apparently conflicting with the accepted practice of conducting non-beneficial research on individuals unable to give consent. There are opinions that it is just “a vacuous figure of speech” and should be abandoned. This paper argues that the primacy principle is far from being “a vacuous figure of speech”, rather it should be seen as a threefold concept: a fundamental interpretative rule, a procedural rule, and a substantive rule aimed at protecting research subjects from instrumental treatment and unacceptable risks. This interpretation tracks back to the principle regulatory and normative origins in the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, but also acknowledges changes in research ethics and practice, which took place at the turn on the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Thus, the proposed reading of the principle is not only original, but also historically grounded and normatively fruitful. It provides a fresh and ethically rich perspective on extensively debated, but still controversial problem of an upper limit of permissible risks in non-beneficial studies. (shrink)

The paper presents major ethical, legal and methodological problems related to the use of placebo in mental disorders, especially in depression. It is pointed out that although authoritative groups of experts and numerous publications in the field of psychopharmacology indicate advisability of the double blind design with placebo in clinical trials of antidepressants, in recent years there have been more and more voices questioning legitimacy of this method. Objections of an ethical nature are raised, and reliability of this approach is (...) put into doubt from the methodological viewpoint. These issues are discussed in more detail in the paper. Available alternative solutions should be implemented in psychotropic drug studies. The author shares these objections and doubts of an ethical nature, and believes that the placebo procedure is not a necessity in clinical trials of antidepressants. (shrink)

In this article we attempt to answer the question of how the ethical and conceptual framework (ECF) for a learning health‐care system (LHS) affects some of the main controversies in research ethics by addressing five key problems of research ethics: (a) What is the difference between practice and research? (b) What is the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics? (c) What is the ethical relevance of the principle of clinical equipoise? (d) Does participation in research require a higher standard (...) of informed consent than the practice of medicine? and (e) What ethical principle should take precedence in medicine? These questions allow us to construct two opposite idealized positions on the distinction between research and practice: the integration model and the segregation model of research and practice. We then compare the ECF for an LHS with these two idealized positions. We argue that the ECF for a LHS does not, in fact, solve these problems, but that it is a third, separate position in the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics. Moreover, we suggest that the ECF for a LHS raises new ethical problems that require additional ethical analysis and justification. Our article contributes to the discussion on the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics, revealing that although a learning health‐care system may significantly change the landscape of health care, some ethical dilemmas still require resolving on both theoretical and policy‐making levels. (shrink)

The leading ethical position on placebo-controlled clinical trials is that whenever proven effective treatment exists for a given condition, it is unethical to test a new treatment for that condition against placebo. Invoking the principle of clinical equipoise, opponents of placebo-controlled trials in the face of proven effective treatment argue that they (1) violate the therapeutic obligation of physicians to offer optimal medical care and (2) lack both scientific and clinical merit. We contend that both of these arguments are mistaken. (...) Clinical equipoise provides erroneous ethical guidance in the case of placebo-controlled trials, because it ignores the ethically relevant distinction between clinical trials and treatment in the context of clinical medicine and the methodological limitations of active-controlled trials. Placebo controls are ethically justifiable when they are supported by sound methodological considerations and their use does not expose research participants to excessive risks of harm. (shrink)

The use of a placebo arm in clinical trials is unethical if there is an active comparator that is acceptably safe and effective. We argue that reasonable evidence of effectiveness and safety of an inexpensive alternative to an expensive therapy is sufficient to require that the inexpensive therapy be included as a comparator when the expensive therapy is tested, and that use of an inactive placebo comparator only is not ethical. For example, studies of the expensive drug eplerenone for congestive (...) heart failure have not included a spironolactone arm, although there is reasonable evidence that spironolactone would be safe and effective, and spironolactone is inexpensive. The requirement to study inexpensive therapies is based on avoidance of unnecessary cost in medical care as an example of non-maleficence. Several ethical actors in the design, conduct, and publication of clinical trials and their results bear responsibility for the appropriate conduct of clinical trials. That responsibility includes protecting study subjects from being asked to participate in clinical trials that serve primarily to promote the use of new and expensive therapies. (shrink)

It has been almost 20 years since the field of bioethics was galvanized by a controversial series of multinational AZT trials employing placebo controls on pregnant HIV-positive women in the developing world even though a standard of care existed in the sponsor countries. The trove of ethical investigations that followed was thoughtful and challenging, yet an important and problematic methodological assumption was left unexplored. In this article, I revisit the famous “double standard of care” case study in order to offer (...) novel consideration of the placebo orthodoxy that underlies much of the ethical debate. This majority view found in medical research is that placebo-controlled trials are methodologically superior to comparative trials that use active controls. I challenge this orthodoxy and argue that lives were unnecessarily lost in these trials as a result. Furthermore, current HIV research on vaccines and microbicides is now poised to repeat the error of subscribing to the placebo orthodoxy. (shrink)

Die ethischen Aspekte der Verwendung von Placebos in klinischen Versuchsreihen wurden im letzten Jahrzehnt ausführlich und kontrovers diskutiert. Es fehlt dennoch eine gründliche vergleichende Analyse der verschiedenen internationalen Richtlinien, ihrer Terminologien und ihrer auf Placebo bezogenen Prinzipien. Das zentrale Problem ist die Rechtfertigung von Placebo bei einer nachgewiesen wirksamen Therapie. Alle aktuellen Versionen der untersuchten Richtlinien schlagen solche Rechtfertigungen vor, unterscheiden sich hierbei jedoch beträchtlich. Zunächst werden wir ein formales allgemeines Prinzip herausarbeiten. Dann werden wir drei verschiedene Kategorien von Kriterien (...) darstellen: das Schadensrisiko oder die Belastung, zwingende wissenschaftliche Gründe und die Erhältlichkeit einer nachgewiesen wirksamen Therapie. Die Analyse zeigt bedeutende normative Abweichungen und Widersprüche innerhalb und zwischen den einzelnen Richtlinien. Besonders frappierend ist es, dassmancheRichtlinien es erlauben, Versuchsteilnehmer dem Risiko eines schweren Schadens auszusetzen, während andere gerade dies untersagen. Abschließend versuchen wir zu zeigen, wie sich die normativen Unterschiede bei der Entscheidungsfindung von Forschern und Ethikkommissionen auswirken können. (shrink)

Die ethischen Aspekte der Verwendung von Placebos in klinischen Versuchsreihen wurden im letzten Jahrzehnt ausführlich und kontrovers diskutiert. Es fehlt dennoch eine gründliche vergleichende Analyse der verschiedenen internationalen Richtlinien, ihrer Terminologien und ihrer auf Placebo bezogenen Prinzipien. Das zentrale Problem ist die Rechtfertigung von Placebo bei einer nachgewiesen wirksamen Therapie. Alle aktuellen Versionen der untersuchten Richtlinien schlagen solche Rechtfertigungen vor, unterscheiden sich hierbei jedoch beträchtlich. Zunächst werden wir ein formales allgemeines Prinzip herausarbeiten. Dann werden wir drei verschiedene Kategorien von Kriterien (...) darstellen: das Schadensrisiko oder die Belastung, zwingende wissenschaftliche Gründe und die Erhältlichkeit einer nachgewiesen wirksamen Therapie. Die Analyse zeigt bedeutende normative Abweichungen und Widersprüche innerhalb und zwischen den einzelnen Richtlinien. Besonders frappierend ist es, dassmancheRichtlinien es erlauben, Versuchsteilnehmer dem Risiko eines schweren Schadens auszusetzen, während andere gerade dies untersagen. Abschließend versuchen wir zu zeigen, wie sich die normativen Unterschiede bei der Entscheidungsfindung von Forschern und Ethikkommissionen auswirken können. (shrink)

The use of placebo as a control condition in clinical trials of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders continues to be an area of ethical concern. Typically, opponents of placebo controls argue that they violate the beneficent-based, “best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method” that the original Helsinki Declaration of 1964 famously asserted participants are owed. A more consequentialist, oppositional argument is that participants receiving placebo might suffer enormously by being deprived of their usual medication(s). Nevertheless, recent findings of potential for (...) suicidality in young people treated with antidepressants, along with meta-analyses suggesting that antidepressants add no significant clinical benefit over placebos, warrant a re-evaluation of the arguments against placebo. Furthermore, the nature of placebo treatment in short-term clinical trials is often not well understood, and lack of understanding can foster opposition to it. This paper will show how scientific justifications for placebo use are morally relevant. The fundamental ethical importance of placebo controls is discussed in relation to several aspects of clinical trials, including detection of adverse events, accurate assessment of clinical benefit, advancing understanding of the heterogeneity of depression and anxiety disorders and respecting informed consent requirements. Prohibiting the use of placebo controls is morally concerning in that such prohibitions allow for the possibility of serious adverse public health consequences. Moral worries that research participants receiving placebo are being unduly jeopardised will be shown to be exaggerated, especially in relation to the net benefits for end-users to be gained from the quality of data resulting from using placebo controls. (shrink)

In April 1999, Dr. Curt Freed of the University of Colorado in Denver and Dr. Stanley Fahn of Columbia Presbyterian Center in New York presented the results of a four-year, $5.7 million government-financed study using tissue from aborted fetuses to treat Parkinson’s disease at a conference of the American Academy of Neurology. The results of the first government-financed, placebo-controlled clinical study using fetal tissue showed that the symptoms of some Parkinson’s patients had been relieved. This research study involved forty subjects, (...) nineteen women and twenty-one men; all suffered from Parkinson’s disease for an average of 13.5 years. In the study, each subject underwent neurosurgery: “four tiny burr holes, drilled through the wrinkle lines above the eyebrows into the skull, to clear a pathway to the brain. But only half received injections of fetal cells into the putamen, the region of the brain that controls movement; the other half received nothing. One year later, three members of the placebo group said their symptoms had improved.” In two-thirds of the transplant recipients, the fetal tissue took hold and seemed to establish a new network to produce the missing neurochemical dopamine. (shrink)

(2002). Clarifying the Ethics of Clinical Research: A Path toward Avoiding the Therapeutic Misconception. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 22-23.