医生是否有义务与患者讨论扩大对研究性药物的获取途径？一种规范分析。
Do Physicians Have a Duty to Discuss Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs with their Patients? A Normative Analysis.
机构信息
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ETHICS, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF MEDICINE, ERASMUS MC, UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS.
GGZ BREBURG, TILBURG, THE NETHERLANDS.
出版信息
J Law Med Ethics. 2023;51(1):172-180. doi: 10.1017/jme.2023.53. Epub 2023 May 25.
Abstract
Drawing on ethical and legal frameworks in the Netherlands, the United States and France, we examine whether physicians are expected to inform patients about potentially relevant opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs. While we found no definitive legal obligation, we argue that physicians have a moral obligation to discuss opportunities for expanded access with patients who have run out of treatment options to prevent inequality, to promote autonomy, and to achieve beneficence.
摘要
借鉴荷兰、美国和法国的伦理和法律框架，我们考察了医生是否有责任告知患者潜在的扩大获取研究性药物的机会。虽然我们没有发现明确的法律义务，但我们认为，医生有道德义务与已经用尽治疗选择的患者讨论扩大获取机会，以防止不平等，促进自主性，并实现善行。
相似文献
1
Do Physicians Have a Duty to Discuss Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs with their Patients? A Normative Analysis.医生是否有义务与患者讨论扩大对研究性药物的获取途径？一种规范分析。
J Law Med Ethics. 2023;51(1):172-180. doi: 10.1017/jme.2023.53. Epub 2023 May 25.
2
The Practice of Pharmaceutics and the Obligation to Expand Access to Investigational Drugs.药剂学实践与扩大获得研究性药物的义务。
J Med Philos. 2020 Mar 19;45(2):193-211. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhz038.
3
What do patients with unmet medical needs want? A qualitative study of patients' views and experiences with expanded access to unapproved, investigational treatments in the Netherlands.未满足医疗需求的患者需要什么？荷兰扩大未批准的研究性治疗方法获取途径的患者观点和经验的定性研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Nov 9;20(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0420-8.
4
Devil in the Details: Physician Duties and Expanded Access.细节中的魔鬼：医生的职责和扩大的可及性。
J Law Med Ethics. 2023;51(1):181-184. doi: 10.1017/jme.2023.54. Epub 2023 May 25.
5
The Role of Physicians in Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs: A Mixed-Methods Study of Physicians' Views and Experiences in The Netherlands.《扩大获得研究性药物的机会中医生的作用：荷兰医生的观点和经验的混合方法研究》
J Bioeth Inq. 2021 Jul;18(2):319-334. doi: 10.1007/s11673-021-10090-7. Epub 2021 Feb 15.
6
Is procreative beneficence obligatory?生殖利他主义是义务性的吗？
J Med Ethics. 2015 Feb;41(2):175-8. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101711. Epub 2014 Feb 12.
7
The ethical and legal framework for the decision not to resuscitate.不进行心肺复苏决策的伦理与法律框架。
West J Med. 1984 Jan;140(1):117-22.
8
Little to lose and no other options: Ethical issues in efforts to facilitate expanded access to investigational drugs.无甚损失，别无他选：为扩大获取试验性药物的机会而努力时涉及的伦理问题。
Health Policy. 2018 Sep;122(9):977-983. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.06.005. Epub 2018 Jun 18.
9
Professional ethics in extreme circumstances: responsibilities of attending physicians and healthcare providers in hunger strikes.极端情况下的职业道德：绝食抗议中主治医生和医疗服务提供者的责任
Theor Med Bioeth. 2015 Aug;36(4):249-63. doi: 10.1007/s11017-015-9333-9.
10
An obligation to provide abortion services: what happens when physicians refuse?提供堕胎服务的义务：当医生拒绝时会发生什么？
J Med Ethics. 1996 Apr;22(2):115-20. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.2.115.
引用本文的文献
1
Devil in the Details: Physician Duties and Expanded Access.细节中的魔鬼：医生的职责和扩大的可及性。
J Law Med Ethics. 2023;51(1):181-184. doi: 10.1017/jme.2023.54. Epub 2023 May 25.
本文引用的文献
1
The 'false hope' argument in discussions on expanded access to investigational drugs: a critical assessment.讨论扩大试验性药物的获取途径时的“虚假希望”论点：批判性评估。
Med Health Care Philos. 2022 Dec;25(4):693-701. doi: 10.1007/s11019-022-10106-y. Epub 2022 Aug 11.
2
ClinicalTrials.gov as a Source of Information About Expanded Access Programs: Cohort Study.ClinicalTrials.gov 作为扩充获得途径项目信息的来源：队列研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Oct 28;23(10):e26890. doi: 10.2196/26890.
3
[Expanded Access in The Netherlands: prescribing unregistered medicine].[荷兰的扩大使用：开具未注册药品]
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2021 Feb 25;165:D5168.
4
Expanded Access Programs, compassionate drug use, and Emergency Use Authorizations during the COVID-19 pandemic.新冠肺炎大流行期间的扩大准入计划、同情用药和紧急使用授权。
Drug Discov Today. 2021 Feb;26(2):593-603. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.11.025. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
5
Medicine's collision with false hope: The False Hope Harms (FHH) argument.医学与虚假希望的碰撞：虚假希望伤害（FHH）论点。
Bioethics. 2020 Sep;34(7):703-711. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12731. Epub 2020 Mar 5.
6
Cystic Fibrosis Lung Disease: An Overview.囊性纤维化肺病：概述。
Respir Care. 2020 Feb;65(2):233-251. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06697. Epub 2019 Nov 26.
7
What do patients with unmet medical needs want? A qualitative study of patients' views and experiences with expanded access to unapproved, investigational treatments in the Netherlands.未满足医疗需求的患者需要什么？荷兰扩大未批准的研究性治疗方法获取途径的患者观点和经验的定性研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Nov 9;20(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0420-8.
8
New drugs: where did we go wrong and what can we do better?新药：我们错在哪里，如何才能做得更好？
BMJ. 2019 Jul 10;366:l4340. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4340.
9
Ethics codes and use of new and innovative drugs.伦理学准则与新型创新药物的使用。
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019 Mar;85(3):501-507. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13833. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
10
Pre-approval Access Terminology: A Cause for Confusion and a Danger to Patients.审批前准入术语：造成混淆的根源及对患者的危害
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017 Jul;51(4):494-500. doi: 10.1177/2168479017696267. Epub 2017 Mar 3.
Zotero 插件