Suppr超能文献

国家和医生研究人员对患者受试者基于信任的义务。

Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects.

作者信息

Miller P B, Weijer C

机构信息

Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2006 Sep;32(9):542-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.014670.

Abstract

When may a physician enroll a patient in clinical research? An adequate answer to this question requires clarification of trust-based obligations of the state and the physician-researcher respectively to the patient-subject. The state relies on the voluntarism of patient-subjects to advance the public interest in science. Accordingly, it is obligated to protect the agent-neutral interests of patient-subjects through promulgating standards that secure these interests. Component analysis is the only comprehensive and systematic specification of regulatory standards for benefit-harm evaluation by research ethics committees (RECs). Clinical equipoise, a standard in component analysis, ensures the treatment arms of a randomised control trial are consistent with competent medical care. It thus serves to protect agent-neutral welfare interests of the patient-subject. But REC review occurs prior to enrolment, highlighting the independent responsibility of the physician-researcher to protect the agent-relative welfare interests of the patient-subject. In a novel interpretation of the duty of care, we argue for a "clinical judgment principle" which requires the physician-researcher to exercise judgment in the interests of the patient-subject taking into account evidence on treatments and the patient-subject's circumstances.

摘要

医生何时可以将患者纳入临床研究?要充分回答这个问题,需要分别阐明国家和医生-研究者对患者-受试者基于信任的义务。国家依靠患者-受试者的自愿性来促进公众对科学的兴趣。因此,国家有义务通过颁布保障这些利益的标准来保护患者-受试者的中立利益。成分分析是研究伦理委员会(REC)进行利弊评估的监管标准的唯一全面和系统的规范。临床 equipoise 作为成分分析中的一项标准,确保随机对照试验的各治疗组符合合理的医疗护理。因此,它有助于保护患者-受试者的中立福利利益。但 REC 的审查在入组之前进行,这凸显了医生-研究者保护患者-受试者相对福利利益的独立责任。在对注意义务的一种新颖解读中,我们主张一种“临床判断原则”,该原则要求医生-研究者为了患者-受试者的利益进行判断,同时考虑到治疗方面的证据和患者-受试者的情况。

相似文献

1
Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects.
J Med Ethics. 2006 Sep;32(9):542-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.014670.
2
Clinical ethics versus clinical research.
Am J Bioeth. 2006 Jul-Aug;6(4):53-5; discussion W42-5. doi: 10.1080/15265160600755615.
4
Vulnerability as the inability of researchers to act in the best interest of a subject.
Am J Bioeth. 2004 Summer;4(3):65-6; discussion W32. doi: 10.1080/15265160490497092.
5
The physician/investigator's obligation to patients participating in research: the case of placebo controlled trials.
J Law Med Ethics. 2005 Fall;33(3):575-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2005.tb00520.x.
8
Questioning the methodologic superiority of 'placebo' over 'active' controlled trials.
Am J Bioeth. 2009 Sep;9(9):34-48. doi: 10.1080/15265160903090041.
9
Assessing the remedy: the case for contracts in clinical trials.
Am J Bioeth. 2011 Apr;11(4):3-12. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2011.560340.
10
A clinical perspective on placebo research: looking back, looking forward.
Am J Bioeth. 2009 Sep;9(9):54-5. doi: 10.1080/15265160903090108.

引用本文的文献

1
The role of the enrolling clinician in emergency research conducted under an exception from informed consent.
Theor Med Bioeth. 2025 Jun;46(3):231-246. doi: 10.1007/s11017-025-09710-9. Epub 2025 Apr 1.
2
Taking the principle of the primacy of the human being seriously.
Med Health Care Philos. 2021 Dec;24(4):547-562. doi: 10.1007/s11019-021-10043-2. Epub 2021 Jul 27.
3
Taking it to the bank: the ethical management of individual findings arising in secondary research.
J Med Ethics. 2021 Oct;47(10):689-696. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106941. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
4
"Why Don't You Go Into Suburbs? Why Are You Targeting Us?": Trust and Mistrust in HIV Vaccine Trials in South Africa.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Dec;13(5):525-536. doi: 10.1177/1556264618804740.
5
Ethical Considerations in Ending Exploratory Brain-Computer Interface Research Studies in Locked-in Syndrome.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018 Oct;27(4):660-674. doi: 10.1017/S0963180118000154.
6
A Defense of The-Risks-of-Daily-Life.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2017;27(3):413-442. doi: 10.1353/ken.2017.0033.
7
From subject to participant: ethics and the evolving role of community in health research.
Am J Public Health. 2015 May;105(5):900-8. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302403. Epub 2015 Mar 19.
8
Return of results: ethical and legal distinctions between research and clinical care.
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014 Mar;166C(1):105-11. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31393. Epub 2014 Mar 10.
10
Does clinical equipoise apply to cluster randomized trials in health research?
Trials. 2011 May 11;12:118. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-118.

本文引用的文献

1
When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?
Nat Med. 2004 Jun;10(6):570-3. doi: 10.1038/nm0604-570.
2
The clinician-investigator: unavoidable but manageable tension.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2003 Dec;13(4):329-46. doi: 10.1353/ken.2004.0003.
5
The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials.
N Engl J Med. 2003 Apr 3;348(14):1383-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb030228.
6
Avoiding a Jekyll-and-Hyde approach to the ethics of clinical research and practice.
Am J Bioeth. 2002 Spring;2(2):14-7. doi: 10.1162/152651602317533550.
7
Moral solutions in assessing research risk.
IRB. 2000 Sep-Oct;22(5):6-10.
8
Children as research subjects: a dilemma.
J Med Philos. 2000 Dec;25(6):745-64. doi: 10.1076/jmep.25.6.723.6129.
10
What makes clinical research ethical?
JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701-11. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验