The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities debated for several years about whether it should adopt positions and, if so, on what range of issues. The membership recently approved an amendment to its bylaws permitting the Society to adopt positions on matters related to academic freedom and professionalism but not on substantive moral and policy issues. This resolution is problematic for a number of reasons, including the lack of a categorical difference between these types of claims and the Society's inability (...) to speak on behalf of patients and research subjects. The implementation of the amendment also raises several issues. The Society will need to refrain from speaking too specifically and to articulate the responsibilities of its members. If the Society fails to address these concerns, it runs the risk of denigrating its public image and that of the profession. (shrink)

This article explores the ethical concerns and protections that may be required when individually identifiable data originally collected solely for clinical or administrative purposes are used in research or evaluation. It asks the following broad question with respect to the interim policy developed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to protect the rights and welfare of participants in its programs: For those programs and projects not classified as research, are the protections and system for review adequate? (...) Background information on SAMHSA's interim policy is provided, along with issues and questions related to the use of clinical and administrative records in research and evaluation. The article concludes with recommendations for modifying the existing participant protection guidelines, based on the preceding discussion of issues and questions. (shrink)