Skip to main content
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2005 Jul;31(7):419–423. doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.010447

What is the role of the research ethics committee? Paternalism, inducements, and harm in research ethics

E Garrard 1, A Dawson 1
PMCID: PMC1734180  PMID: 15994364

Abstract

In a recent paper Edwards, Kirchin, and Huxtable have argued that research ethics committees (RECs) are often wrongfully paternalistic in their approach to medical research. They argue that it should be left to competent potential research subjects to make judgments about the acceptability of harms and benefits relating to research, and that this is not a legitimate role for any REC. They allow an exception to their overall antipaternalism, however, in that they think RECs should have the power to prohibit the use of financial inducements to recruit research subjects into trials. In this paper it is argued that these claims are unjustified and implausible. A sketch is provided of an alternative model of the role of the REC as an expert body making judgments about the acceptability of research proposals through a consensual weighing of different moral considerations.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (67.3 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Edwards S. J. L., Kirchin S., Huxtable R. Research ethics committees and paternalism. J Med Ethics. 2004 Feb;30(1):88–91. doi: 10.1136/jme.2002.000166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Featherstone Katie, Donovan Jenny L. "Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?" The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 2002 Sep;55(5):709–719. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00197-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Holm S. Not just autonomy--the principles of American biomedical ethics. J Med Ethics. 1995 Dec;21(6):332–338. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.6.332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. KLISIECKI A., WIKTOR Z., PYTASZ M., DEC L. [Alkalization, ammonia and urea in urine in kidney diseases]. Pol Tyg Lek. 1961 Dec 25;16:2001–2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Robinson Elizabeth J., Kerr Cicely, Stevens Andrew, Lilford Richard, Braunholtz David, Edwards Sarah. Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Feb;58(4):811–824. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00255-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Snowdon C., Garcia J., Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med. 1997 Nov;45(9):1337–1355. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00063-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. White C. New study reports that diet is critical to cancer prevention. BMJ. 1997 Oct 4;315(7112):831–831. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7112.831a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES