a University of Washington School of Medicine.
Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(12):14-9. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.851582.
The Office of Human Research Protections was not justified in issuing findings against the SUPPORT Institutions. Our community can learn from the evolving healthcare transformation into learning health systems by thinking about the novel ethical issues about standard of care research raised by the SUPPORT with the same spirit of quality improvement. The current regulatory framework and the concept of foreseeable research risks is insufficient to advance the debate about the ethics of randomization of standard clinical interventions. This article uses the example of the Wisconsin cystic fibrosis randomized clinical trial for newborn screening trial to explore the distinctions between risks of research and clinical care and waivers of informed consent for randomization. Collaborative exploration of these complex policy issues is needed and further deliberation, community engagement, and social science research will be critical to advance novel approaches for informed consent.
人类研究保护办公室对 SUPPORT 机构的调查结果没有正当理由。我们的社区可以通过以质量改进的同样精神,思考支持研究提出的关于标准护理研究的新颖伦理问题,从不断发展的医疗保健向学习健康系统的转变中吸取经验。当前的监管框架和可预见的研究风险概念不足以推进关于随机分配标准临床干预措施的伦理问题的辩论。本文以威斯康星州囊性纤维化新生儿筛查试验的随机临床试验为例,探讨了研究风险和临床护理之间的区别,以及随机分组的知情同意豁免。需要对这些复杂的政策问题进行协作探索,进一步的审议、社区参与和社会科学研究对于推进知情同意的新方法至关重要。