Luebbert Rebecca, Tait Raymond C, Chibnall John T, Deshields Teresa L
Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville (USA).
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2008 Mar;3(1):15-24. doi: 10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.15.
WHILE INDIVIDUALS WITH PSYCHIATRIC illnesses are widely considered a special class of research subjects regarding decisional capacity and coercion vulnerability, those with physical illnesses often are not. IRB members (N = 127) read vignettes that described clinical research targeting one of two levels of disease severity (high/low) for psychiatric or medical diagnoses. They then rated decisional capacity, coercion, and risks for hypothetical research subjects. IRB members viewed psychiatric subjects as having greater vulnerability to coercion and less decisional capacity than medical subjects, even when medical illness was of a severity likely to engender psychiatric comorbidities. These results suggest that IRB members may inflate the vulnerability and decisional incapacity of psychiatric subjects, while discounting vulnerability and incapacity in medical subjects.
虽然患有精神疾病的个体在决策能力和易受强制方面被广泛视为一类特殊的研究对象,但患有躯体疾病的个体往往并非如此。机构审查委员会(IRB)成员(N = 127)阅读了一些短文,这些短文描述了针对精神科或内科诊断的两种疾病严重程度(高/低)之一的临床研究。然后,他们对假设的研究对象的决策能力、受强制情况和风险进行了评分。IRB成员认为,与内科研究对象相比,精神科研究对象更容易受到强制,决策能力也更低,即使内科疾病的严重程度可能会引发精神科合并症。这些结果表明,IRB成员可能夸大了精神科研究对象的脆弱性和决策无能力,而低估了内科研究对象的脆弱性和无能力。