The best way to distinguish treatment from research is by their functions. This mode of distinction fits well with the basic ethical work that needs to be carried out. The distinction needs to serve as an ethical flag, highlighting areas in which the goals of doctors and patients are more likely than usual to diverge. The distinction also allows us to illuminate and understand some otherwise puzzling elements of debates on research ethics: it shows the peculiarity of exclusive conceptions of the distinction between research and treatment; it allows us to frame questions about therapeutic obligations in the research context, and it allows us to consider whether there may be research obligations in the therapeutic context.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research?
- Should desperate volunteers be included in randomised controlled trials?
- Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller’s “Assessing research risks systematically”
- Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects
- The ethics of attaching research conditions to access to new health technologies
- Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: an interview study using a Grounded Theory approach
- Learning health systems, clinical equipoise and the ethics of response adaptive randomisation
- Randomised placebo-controlled trials of surgery: ethical analysis and guidelines
- The ethical dilemma of emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain
- Position statement on ethics, equipoise and research on charged particle radiation therapy