Article Text
Abstract
Awareness of the morally significant distinction between research and innovative therapy reveals serious gaps in the legal provision for compensation in the UK for injured subjects of medical research. Major problems are limitations inherent in negligence actions and a culture that emphasises indemnifying researchers before compensating victims. Medical research morally requires compensation on a no-fault basis even where there is proper consent on the part of the research subject. In particular, for drug research, there is insufficient provision in the current patient guidelines of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, since they make "no legal commitment" to paying compensation for injury to patient subjects. There is a need for the provision of both adequate insurance and contractual arrangements for making payments. The solution is for Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) to make use of their power to withhold approval of medical research where compensation is not legally enforceable.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- Research Article
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Appropriateness of no-fault compensation for research-related injuries from an African perspective: an appeal for action by African countries
- Review of policies for injuries to research participants in India
- Regulation of biomedical research in Africa
- Intellectual property rights and detached human body parts
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- We could be heroes: ethical issues with the pre-recruitment of research participants
- What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research
- Payment for participation in research: a pursuit for the poor?
- Should local research ethics committees monitor research they have approved?
- Informed consent in medical research: Journals should not publish research to which patients have not given fully informed consent–with three exceptions