Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (4):332-343 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Institutional review boards and investigators are used to talking about risks of harm. Both low risks of great harm and high risks of small harm must be disclosed to prospective subjects and should be explained and categorized in ways that help potential subjects to understand and weigh them appropriately. Everyone on an IRB has probably spent time at meetings arguing over whether a three-page bulleted list of risk description is helpful or overkill for prospective subjects. Yet only a small fraction of all the time and attention lavished on risk disclosure has been devoted to discussing whether and when potential benefit to subjects can reasonably be claimed and, if so, how it should be described in the consent form and process.Traditionally, IRBs and regulators have worked to ensure that clear lines can be drawn between research that, by definition, carries no potential for direct benefit — because it uses healthy volunteers or because it is not foreseeably focused on the development of treatments — and research that does have the development of effective treatments as its goal.

Other Versions

original King, Nancy M. P. (2000) "Not for Distribution". Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28():332-343

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 97,154

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-31

Downloads
37 (#478,490)

6 months
10 (#613,963)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile