9 found
  1.  46
    Research ethics committees and paternalism.S. J. L. Edwards - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (1):88-91.
    In this paper the authors argue that research ethics committees should not be paternalistic by rejecting research that poses risk to people competent to decide for themselves. However it is important they help to ensure valid consent is sought from potential recruits and protect vulnerable people who cannot look after their own best interests. The authors first describe the tragic deaths of Jesse Gelsinger and Ellen Roche. They then discuss the following claims to support their case: competent individuals are epistemologically (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   23 citations  
  2. Are discrepancies between research ethics committees always morally problematic.S. J. L. Edwards, R. A. Ashcroft & S. Kirchin - 2004 - Bioethics 18 (4):408-427.
  3.  34
    Ethics review of research: in pursuit of proportionality.S. J. L. Edwards & R. Omar - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (7):568-572.
    The ethics review system of research is now well-established, at least in the developed world, although there are many differences in how countries view it and go about managing it. The UK specifically is now seeking to revise its system by speeding up the process of ethics approval but only for some studies. It is proposed that only those studies which pose “no material ethical issues” should be “fast-tracked”. However, it is unclear what this means, who should decide and what (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4. A qualitative investigation of selecting surrogate decision-makers.S. J. L. Edwards, P. Brown, M. A. Twyman, D. Christie & T. Rakow - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (10):601-605.
    Background Empirical studies of surrogate decision-making tend to assume that surrogates should make only a 'substituted judgement'—that is, judge what the patient would want if they were mentally competent. Objectives To explore what people want in a surrogate decision-maker whom they themselves select and to test the assumption that people want their chosen surrogate to make only a substituted judgement. Methods 30 undergraduate students were recruited. They were presented with a hypothetical scenario about their expected loss of mental capacity in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5.  18
    Rationing, randomising, and researching in health care provision.S. J. L. Edwards - 2002 - Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (1):20-23.
    In this paper the need for valid evidence of the cost-effectiveness of treatments that have not been properly evaluated, yet are already available, albeit in short supply, are examined. Such treatments cannot be withdrawn, pending proper evaluation, nor can they be made more widely available until they have been shown to be cost-effective. As a solution to this impasse the argument put forward recently by Toroyan et al is discussed. They say that randomised controlled trials of such resources could be (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  6.  23
    Views on the right to withdraw from randomised controlled trials assessing quality of life after mastectomy and breast reconstruction (QUEST): findings from the QUEST perspectives study (QPS).N. Bidad, L. MacDonald, Z. E. Winters, S. J. L. Edwards & R. Horne - 2014 - Research Ethics 10 (1):47-57.
    The purpose of this study is to examine the importance that real patients attach to their right to withdraw from an on-going feasibility randomised trial (RCT) evaluating types and timings of breast reconstruction (two parallel trials) following mastectomy for breast cancer. Our results show that, while some respondents appreciated that exercising the right to withdraw would defeat the scientific objective of the trial, some patients with a surgical preference consented only given the knowledge they could withdraw if they were not (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
  7.  5
    The Powerful Placebo.S. J. L. Edwards - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (1):64-65.
  8.  13
    Altruism, Paternalism and RECs.S. T. Kirchin, S. J. L. Edwards & R. Huxtable - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (1):88-91.
  9.  74
    Can unequal be more fair? A response to Andrew Avins.S. J. L. Edwards - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (3):179-182.
    In this paper, we respond to Andrew Avins's recent review of methods whose use he advocates in clinical trials, to make them more ethical. He recommends in particular, “unbalanced randomisation”. However, we argue that, before such a recommendation can be made, it is important to establish why unequal randomisation might offer ethical advantages over equal randomisation, other things being equal. It is important to make a pragmatic distinction between trials of treatments that are already routinely available and trials of restricted (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   1 citation