Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 1997 Jun;23(3):186–190. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.3.186

The views of members of Local Research Ethics Committees, researchers and members of the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs.

G Kent 1
PMCID: PMC1377349  PMID: 9220334

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It can be argued that the ethical conduct of research involves achieving a balance between the rights and needs of three parties-potential research participants, society, and researchers. Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) have a number of roles and functions in the research enterprise, but there have been some indications that LREC members, researchers and the public can have different views about these responsibilities. Any such differences are potential sources of disagreement and misunderstanding. OBJECTIVES: To compare the views of LREC members, researchers and the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs. DESIGN: A questionnaire that contained items concerned with a variety of such roles was distributed to general practice patients (as proxies for potential research participants), researchers and LREC members. FINDINGS: While general practice patients believed that the main function of LRECs is to ensure that research participants come to no harm, LREC members were more concerned with the protection of participants' rights. There was also some disagreement between members and researchers with regard to the consideration of proposals on the grounds of scientific merit. CONCLUSIONS: Local Research Ethics Committee members need to be aware of potential differences in views, that they ought to make their priorities clear, and that membership of LRECs ought to reflect the views of both researchers and potential research participants.

Full text

PDF
186

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alberti K. G. Local research ethics committees. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):639–640. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bamberg Michael, Budwig Nancy. Therapeutic misconceptions: when the voices of caring and research are misconstrued as the voice of curing. Ethics Behav. 1992;2(3):165–184. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0203_3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baum M., Zilkha K., Houghton J. Ethics of clinical research: lessons for the future. BMJ. 1989 Jul 22;299(6693):251–253. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6693.251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Foster C. Why do research ethics committees disagree with each other? J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995 Jul-Aug;29(4):315–318. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):660–661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gilbert C., Fulford K. W., Parker C. Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees. BMJ. 1989 Dec 9;299(6713):1437–1439. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6713.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goodare H., Smith R. The rights of patients in research. BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1277–1278. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harries U. J., Fentem P. H., Tuxworth W., Hoinville G. W. Local research ethics committees. Widely differing responses to a national survey protocol. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1994 Mar-Apr;28(2):150–154. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Middle C., Johnson A., Petty T., Sims L., Macfarlane A. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):659–660. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Parrott R., Burgoon J. K., Burgoon M., LePoire B. A. Privacy between physicians and patients: more than a matter of confidentiality. Soc Sci Med. 1989;29(12):1381–1385. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(89)90239-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Schreier B. A., Stadler H. A. Perspectives of research participants, psychologist investigators, and institutional review boards. Percept Mot Skills. 1992 Jun;74(3 Pt 2):1067–1072. doi: 10.2466/pms.1992.74.1.1067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Silverman W. A. The myth of informed consent: in daily practice and in clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 1989 Mar;15(1):6–11. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.1.6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wallace L. M., Joshi M., Wingett C., Wilson C., Spellman D. Nurses' perceptions of patients' needs for information and their concerns in an English coronary care unit. Intensive Care Nurs. 1985;1(2):84–91. doi: 10.1016/0266-612x(85)90004-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Weiss B. D. Confidentiality expectations of patients, physicians, and medical students. JAMA. 1982 May 21;247(19):2695–2697. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES