Article Text
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.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller’s “Assessing research risks systematically”
- Thinking clearly about the FIRST trial: addressing ethical challenges in cluster randomised trials of policy interventions involving health providers
- Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test
- Health policy and systems research: towards a better understanding and review of ethical issues
- Intervening in clinical research to prevent the onset of psychoses: conflicts and obligations
- Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research?
- Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them
- Beyond informed consent: the therapeutic misconception and trust
- Equipoise, standard of care and consent: responding to the authorisation of new COVID-19 treatments in randomised controlled trials
- Acceptability of donor funding for clinical trials in the UK: a qualitative empirical ethics study using focus groups to elicit the views of research patient public involvement group members, research ethics committee chairs and clinical researchers