Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Moore and Donnelly argue in the paper ‘The job of “ethics committees”’ that research ethics committees should be renamed and that their job should be specified as “review of proposals for consistency with the duly established and applicable code” only.1 They raise a large number of issues, but in this comment I briefly want to suggest that two of their arguments are fundamentally flawed.
The first flawed argument is the argument related to the separation of powers. Moore and Donnelly proceed from the premise that it is pro tanto better to have an institutional arrangement that separates code-making powers and decisional powers, and then proceed to argue that this separation is not feasible for what they call ‘ethics consistency review’ because “no matter who established any prespecified review standards, the review decision maker must be empowered at review to revise those standards when this would make for an ethical improvement. This is because any understanding of ethics-consistency standards themselves and of their implications for any case is fallible and improvable in …
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
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.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
- Feature article
- Commentary
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The job of ‘ ethics committees ’
- 2nd International Conference on Biomedicine and Pharmaceutics (ICBP) 2014
- The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials: précis for researchers and research ethics committees
- How to write a systematic review of reasons
- Health policy and systems research: towards a better understanding and review of ethical issues
- Contesting the science / ethics distinction in the review of clinical research
- Proportional ethical review and the identification of ethical issues
- Non-equivalent stringency of ethical review in the Baltic States: a sign of a systematic problem in Europe
- Animal researchers shoulder a psychological burden that animal ethics committees ought to address
- Ethical conflicts during the process of deciding about ICU admission: an empirically driven ethical analysis