Article Text

PDF
Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects
  1. P B Miller1,
  2. C Weijer2
  1. 1Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2Department of Philosophy, Talbot College, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to:
 C Weijer
 Department of Philosophy, Talbot College, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada; cweijer{at}uwo.ca

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.

  • RCT, randomised controlled trial
  • REC, research ethics committee

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding: PBM was supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. CW was supported by a Canada Research Chair (Tier I) and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grant.

  • Competing interests: None.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.