Abstract
In this paper the authors argue that research ethics committees (RECs) should not be paternalistic by rejecting research that poses risk to people competent to decide for themselves. However it is important they help to ensure valid consent is sought from potential recruits and protect vulnerable people who cannot look after their own best interests. The authors first describe the tragic deaths of Jesse Gelsinger and Ellen Roche. They then discuss the following claims to support their case: (1) competent individuals are epistemologically and ethically in the best position to say which risks are reasonable for them, so RECs should be no more restrictive than the "normal" constraints on people taking risks with themselves; (2) RECs do not judge individual competence (that is for researchers and psychiatrists); (3) individual liberty is mostly limited by what serves the public interest, and RECs do not determine public interest; (4) RECs may have a paternalistic role in preventing exploitation of competent people vulnerable to the use of incentives, and in protecting the interests of incompetent people; however, (5) the moral and political authority of RECs has not been established in this respect.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (183.2 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Baram M. Making clinical trials safer for human subjects. Am J Law Med. 2001;27(2-3):253–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cale Gita S. Risk-related standards of competence: continuing the debate over risk-related standards of competence. Bioethics. 1999 Apr;13(2):131–148. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Macklin Ruth. On paying money to research subjects: 'due' and 'undue' inducements. IRB. 1981 May;3(5):1–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marwick Charles. Failure to inform public is undermining confidence in clinical trials. BMJ. 2002 Aug 17;325(7360):356–356. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7360.356/e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mastroianni A., Kahn J. Swinging on the pendulum. Shifting views of justice in human subjects research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2001 May-Jun;31(3):21–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mi J., Law C., Zhang K. L., Osmond C., Stein C., Barker D. Effects of infant birthweight and maternal body mass index in pregnancy on components of the insulin resistance syndrome in China. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Feb 15;132(4):253–260. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-4-200002150-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Savulescu J. Commentary: safety of participants in non-therapeutic research must be ensured. BMJ. 1998 Mar 21;316(7135):891–894. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Savulescu J. Harm, ethics committees and the gene therapy death. J Med Ethics. 2001 Jun;27(3):148–150. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.3.148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wicclair Mark R. The continuing debate over risk-related standards of competence. Bioethics. 1999 Apr;13(2):149–153. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wilkinson Martin, Moore Andrew. Inducement in research. Bioethics. 1997 Oct;11(5):373–389. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wilks Ian. Asymmetrical competence. Bioethics. 1999 Apr;13(2):154–159. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]