Search

A traditional ethic of medicine asserts that physicians have special obligations to individual patients with whom they have a clinical relationship. Contemporary trends in US healthcare financing like bundled payments seem to threaten traditional conceptions of special obligations of individual physicians to individual patients because their population-based focus sets a tone that seems to emphasise responsibilities for groups of patients by groups of physicians in an organisation. Prior to undertaking a cogent debate about the fate and normative weight of special obligations and a traditional ethic for contemporary healthcare, we need a deeper examination of what the traditional ethic of special obligations really means. Here we offer a conception of ‘doubly distributed’ special obligations. Physicians and similarly minded healing professionals abiding by a traditional ethic have always spread their devotion and attention across multiple patients and have shared responsibilities with physician and non-physician colleagues in much the same way devoted parents have frequently distributed their special obligations across multiple children and across multiple parents. By taking up the extended analogy of parent we argue that doubly distributing special obligations need not contradict the possibility of special obligations in restructured collective forms of healthcare delivery and financing.

One of the founding principles of research ethics is that subjects should be treated equally. In the words of the Belmont Report, “equals ought to be treated equally.” This principle does not imply that all subjects should be treated exactly the same. Rather, subjects who are similar in relevant respects should receive similar treatment. Clinical status is clearly relevant to determining how subjects should be treated. Greater resources should be devoted to subjects who have worse diseases. In contrast, fame is irrelevant. Subjects should not receive greater resources simply because they are famous. A more challenging question, one that pervades clinical research yet has received almost no attention in the literature, is whether subjects' level of scientific importance is relevant to determining how much support they should receive..

Background Many published accounts of clinical trials report no differences between the treatment arms, while being underpowered to find differences. This study determined how the authors of these reports interpreted their findings. Study Design We examined 54 reports of surgical trials chosen randomly from a database of 110 influential trials conducted in 2008. Seven that reported having adequate statistical power (β ≥ 0.9) were excluded from further analysis, as were the 32 that reported significant differences between the treatment arms. We examined the remaining 15 to see whether the authors interpreted their negative findings appropriately. Appropriate interpretations discussed the lack of power and/or called for larger studies. Results Three of the 7 trials that did not report an a priori power calculation offered inappropriate interpretations, as did 3 of the 8 trials that reported an a priori power Conclusions Negative findings in underpowered trials were often interpreted as showing the equivalence of the treatment arms with no discussion of the issue of being underpowered. This may lead clinicians to accept new treatments that have not been validated.

Background If trials of therapeutic interventions are to serve society9s interests, they must be of high methodological quality and must satisfy moral commitments to human subjects. The authors set out to develop a clinical-trials compendium in which standards for the ethical treatment of human subjects are integrated with standards for research methods. Methods The authors rank-ordered the world9s nations and chose the 31 with >700 active trials as of 24 July 2008. Governmental and other authoritative entities of the 31 countries were searched, and 1004 English-language documents containing ethical and/or methodological standards for clinical trials were identified. The authors extracted standards from 144 of those: 50 designated as ‘core’, 39 addressing trials of invasive procedures and a 5% sample (N=55) of the remainder. As the integrating framework for the standards we developed a coherent taxonomy encompassing all elements of a trial9s stages. Findings Review of the 144 documents yielded nearly 15 000 discrete standards. After duplicates were removed, 5903 substantive standards remained, distributed in the taxonomy as follows: initiation, 1401 standards, 8 divisions; design, 1869 standards, 16 divisions; conduct, 1473 standards, 8 divisions; analysing and reporting results, 997 standards, four divisions; and post-trial standards, 168 standards, 5 divisions. Conclusions The overwhelming number of source documents and standards uncovered in this study was not anticipated beforehand and confirms the extraordinary complexity of the clinical trials enterprise. This taxonomy of multinational ethical and methodological standards may help trialists and overseers improve the quality of clinical trials, particularly given the globalisation of clinical research.

Biotechnological inventions are sometimes based upon the traditional knowledge of indigenous communities about the beneficial properties of plants and animals. Some institutions have adopted the uniqueness of traditional knowledge approach, which maintains that the indigenous communities have sui generis rights to a share of the profits from these inventions. Others have adopted the protection of inventive steps approach, which maintains that the inventors are entitled to the full profits from the invention if it involves a non-obvious and novel inventive step. The article analyzes this debate at the Convention on Biological Diversity, at the World Intellectual Property Organization, and at the World Trade Organization. It concludes that the adherents of the uniqueness of traditional knowledge approach have not justified their claims.

Recent federal regulations allow for emergency research without prospective consent provided that additional protections for the subjects are provided. One of these is community consultation.To determine how to feasibly consult the community and what to do with the findings.In connection with an ongoing study of l-arginine for brain injury at a public hospital's trauma center, we consulted three sets of community representatives using different methods. To sample the entire population of the county, we conducted a random-digit dialing survey (456 residents). To sample individuals served by the hospital, we interviewed a convenience sample of 566 patients and individuals in the waiting area. To sample particularly interested individuals, we conducted a series of public meetings (114 participants). In each case, the same instrument was used to ascertain their attitudes toward the study in general and toward its major features (randomization, waiver of consent, location, risks/benefits). To control for framing effects, items were randomly presented in a positive or negative fashion.All methods proved feasible, but telephone surveys were most efficient and guaranteed the desired demography. Even for a very low-risk study, only 79.75% of respondents would be willing to participate. The rate of approval for the major features was lower, with only 67.78% approving of the risk/benefit ratio, 53.7% approving of randomization, 57.66% approving of the consent waiver, and 44.45% approving of the location. The most significant factors affecting the rate of approval were the method of consultation and the framing of items (both p.001), age, ethnicity, and previous research participation (all p.01).Community consultation is feasible, but its results depend heavily on method of consultation, framing of questions, and choice of community. It may well demonstrate unexpectedly substantial opposition. There needs to be a better definition of the process and a better understanding of how to respond to its results.

Continuing the discussion begun in the March 2006 issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, this paper further documents the failure of the United States to adequately consider possible modifications in the traditional robust system of intellectual property rights as applied to biotechnology. It discusses concrete suggestions for alternative disclosure requirements, for exemptions for research tools, and for improved access to clinical advances. In each of these cases, the modifications might be more responsive to the full set of relevant values.

The vertical transmission trials conducted in a variety of developing countries by researchers from more developed countries illustrate a variety of crucial ethical issues. Three crucial issues are the injustice of the use of placebo control groups, the coerciveness of the offer to participate, and the exploitation of Third World countries. This paper examines each of these issues separately. It develops a new standard for when such control groups are acceptable. It concludes that the issue of coercive offers is not well founded. It also concludes that concerns about exploitation are better addressed by assurances about the future care of the subjects in the trial than by assurances of availability of the drugs in the country in general.

Pharmacogenetics offers the prospect of an era of safer and more effective drugs, as well as more individualized use of drug therapies. Before the benefits of pharmacogenetics can be realized, the ethical issues that arise in research and clinical application of pharmacogenetic technologies must be addressed. The ethical issues raised by pharmacogenetics can be addressed under six headings: (1) regulatory oversight, (2) confidentiality and privacy, (3) informed consent, (4) availability of drugs, (5) access, and (6) clinicians' changing responsibilities in the era of pharmacogenetic medicine. We analyze each of these categories of ethical issues and provide policy approaches for addressing them.

The Helsinki Declaration, adopted in 1964, became a landmark document for research ethics and for the protection of human subjects. Since then, additional complexities have emerged. The advance in biomedical research protocols and medical technologies dictates further discussion of the emerging concerns in this field. This article explores the following concerns related to research with no consent given in advance, using incompetent subjects, international participation, and the role of independent research committees.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest pose a threat to the integrity of scientific research. The current regulations of the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation require that medical schools and other research institutions report the existence of conflicts of interest to the funding agency but allow the institutions to manage conflicts internally. The regulations do not specify how to do so. METHODS: We surveyed all medical schools (127) and other research institutions (170) that received more than $5 million in total grants annually from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation; 48 journals in basic science and clinical medicine; and 17 federal agencies in order to analyze their policies on conflicts of interest. RESULTS: Of the 297 institutions, 250 (84 percent) responded by March 2000, as did 47 of the 48 journals and 16 of the 17 federal agencies. Fifteen of the 250 institutions (6 percent)--5 medical schools and 10 other research institutions--reported that they had no policy on conflicts of interest. Among the institutions that had policies, there was marked variation in the definition and management of conflicts. Ninety-one percent had policies that adhered to the federal threshold for disclosure ($10,000 in annual income or equity in a relevant company or 5 percent ownership), and 9 percent had policies that exceeded the federal guidelines. Only 8 percent had policies requiring disclosure to funding agencies, only 7 percent had such policies regarding journals, and only 1 percent had policies requiring the disclosure of information to the relevant institutional review boards or to research subjects. Twenty journals (43 percent) reported that they had policies requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest. Only four federal agencies had policies that explicitly addressed conflicts of interest in extramural research, and all but one of the agencies relied primarily on institutional discretion. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation among policies on conflicts of interest at medical schools and other research institutions. This variation, combined with the fact that many scientific journals and funding agencies do not require disclosure of conflicts of interest, suggests that the current standards may not be adequate to maintain a high level of scientific integrity.

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese本文將文獻中所提出的無效分為四種主要型：生理無效、臨死無效、致命性疾病無效和質量無效；提出了任何無效定義必須滿足的五個條件：精確性條件、預期性條件、社會認可條件、顯著性條件和不同意條件。文章認為，迄今文獻中所提出的無效定義無一滿足這五個條件，其主要原因是，定義的提出者未對支援其定義使用的資料的問題性給予足夠的重視。DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 24 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

Background. Utility techniques are the most commonly used means to assess patient preferences for health outcomes. However, whether utility techniques produce valid measures of preference has been difficult to determine in the absence of a gold standard. Objective. To introduce and demonstrate two methods that can be used to evaluate how well utility techniques measure patients' preferences. Subjects and Design. Patients treated for advanced prostate cancer (n = 57) first ranked eight health states in order of preference. Four utility techniques were then used to elicit patients' utilities for each health state. Measures. The rating scale, standard gamble, time trade-off, and a modified version of willingness-to-pay techniques were used to elicit patients' utilities. Technique performance was assessed by computing a differentiation and inconsistency score for each technique. Results. Differentiation scores indicated the rating scale permitted respondents to assign unique utility values to about 70% of the health states that should have received unique values. When the other techniques were used, about 40% or less of the health states that should have received unique utility scores actually did receive unique utility scores. Inconsistency scores, which indicate how often participants assign utility scores that contradict how they value health states, indicated that the willingness-to-pay technique produced the lowest rate of inconsistency (10%). However, this technique did not differ significantly from the rating scale or standard gamble on this dimension. Conclusions. Differentiation and inconsistency offer a means to evaluate the performance of utility techniques, thereby allowing investigators to determine the extent to which utilities they have elicited for a given decision problem are valid. In the current investigation, the differentiation and inconsistency methods indicated that all four techniques performed at sub-optimal levels, though the rating scale out-performed the standard gamble, time trade-off, and willingness-to-pay techniques.

This paper presents a standard for assessing the validity of placebo-controlled trials in circumstances in which such trials might be unjustly denying appropriate therapies to members of the control group. This standard categorizes the types of risks that can or cannot be imposed upon consenting research subjects in such control groups. The paper also shows how needed research can be conducted while respecting the proposed ethical standard. Both the problem and the proposed standard are illustrated by reference to the major trials of the thrombolytic agents.

Men who pursue active treatment for metastatic prostate cancer face a choice between medical or surgical castration. While both alternatives have documented side-effects (e.g. loss of libido, breast enlargement and tenderness, hot flashes, and nausea), their psychosocial impacts are not well understood. As part of a study of patients' treatment decision making, we have sought to construct a patient-based measure of the salient disease and treatment-related qualities of life experienced by these men subsequent to treatment. Focus groups (15 with patients, two with wives) were used to develop candidate Likert scale questionnaire items representing quality of life issues that patients said were important. These items were combined with assessments of symptoms, comorbidity, and generic measures of functional status and well-being in a mail survey of patients treated at the Houston VAMC and two other Houston hospitals (n = 201, response rate = 63%). Psychometric analyses (principal components and multitrait scaling) were used to identify distinct dimensions of life quality; correlations with generic measures, and symptom reports were used in validation analyses. Qualitative analyses of focus group data identified three major domains of life quality: self-perceptions, anxiety about the effects of treatment, and concern with the process of decision making and treatment. Psychometric analyses identified nine reliable and valid indicators of prostate cancer-related quality of life: body image, sexual problems, spouse affection, spouse worry, masculinity, cancer-related self-image, cancer distress, cancer acceptance, and regret of treatment decision. Internal consistency (alpha) ranged form 0.71 to 0.90. Correlations with reference scales (e.g. MOS Mental Health Index, Profile of Mood States) and symptom status supported concurrent validity. Prostate cancer patients perceive a number of important psychosocial consequences of their treatment. These consequences are represented by nine scales comprising a brief (35 items) disease and treatment sensitive health-related quality of life instrument, which we will use in monitoring the outcomes of patients' treatment choices.

This paper distinguishes four major types of futility (physiological, imminent demise, lethal condition, and qualitative) that have been advocated in the literature either in a patient dependent or a patient independent fashion. It proposes five criteria (precision, prospective, social acceptability, significant number, and non-agreement) that any definition of futility must satisfy if it is to serve as the basis for unilaterally limiting futile care. It then argues that none of the definitions that have been advocated meet the criteria, primarily because their proponents have not paid sufficient attention to the problematic nature of the data supporting the use of their definitions.

Unlike medications, the dissemination of surgical procedures into practice is not regulated. Before marketing, pharmaceutical products are required to be shown safe and efficacious in comparative clinical trials which utilize bias-reducing strategies designed to reduce the distortion of estimates of treatment effect by predispositions towards the investigational intervention or control. Unless an investigational device is involved, the corresponding process for surgical innovations is usually unregulated and therefore may not be based upon adequate evidence. Given these differences, we sought to evaluate the state of clinical research on invasive procedures. We conducted a systematic review of publications from 1999–2008 that reported the results of studies evaluating the effects of invasive therapeutic procedures, focusing on trials which appeared to influence practice. Our objective was to determine what proportion of studies evaluating surgical procedures use a comparative clinical trial design and methods to control bias. This paper reports our results and raises concerns about the methodological, and therefore the ethical, quality of clinical research used to justify the implementation of surgical procedures into practice.

There has been a growing concern over establishing norms that ensure the ethically acceptable and scientifically sound conduct of clinical trials. Among the leading norms internationally are the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, guidelines by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), the International Conference on Harmonization's standards for industry (ICH), and the CONSORT group's reporting norms (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), in addition to the influential U.S. Federal Common Rule, Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) body of regulations, and information sheets by the Department of Health and Human Services. There are also many norms published at more local levels by official agencies and professional groups.Any account of international standards should cover both scientific and ethical norms at once – the two are conceptually intertwined. Recent sources recognize that “[s]cientifically unsound research on human subjects is unethical in that it exposes research subjects to risks without possible benefit.”

The emergence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as a serious public health threat has rekindled long dormant debate about individual physicians' duty to treat potentially contagious patients. Because of the widely accepted common-law tenet of the "no duty [to treat] rule," previous work on a duty to treat focused on historical reviews, medical society position statements, and the ethical arguments upon which the statements are based. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act has rendered these discussions moot by creating, through federal civil rights mechanisms, a legal duty to treat patients with HIV, enforceable under considerable penalties. The paper also concludes that there has been inadequate attention paid to similar civil rights concerns of infected physicians.

Can a medical ethic be developed for a liberal state? This is the issue posed by the authors of both of the works under review. Brennan in Just Doctoring thinks that the answer is yes and that his theory of just doctoring provides just such an ethic. Emanuel in The Ends of Human Life thinks that the answer is no and that an adequate resolution of the dilemmas of medical ethics requires an alternative political philosophy, liberal commun itarianism.

The issue of biopiracy has attracted considerable attention in recent years. The Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a principle of state sovereignty over biological resources and the genetic information contained within those resources to address this issue. It is argued that this principle has not been adequately justified and that there are other solutions to the issue of biopiracy, based on different theories of justice, that deserve greater consideration. These alternatives include the common heritage of mankind principle and the global commons principle.

This paper focuses on invasive therapeutic procedures, defined as procedures requiring the introduction of hands, instruments, or devices into the body via incisions or punctures of the skin or mucous membranes performed with the intent of changing the natural history of a human disease or condition for the better. Ethical and methodological concerns have been expressed about studies designed to evaluate the effects of invasive therapeutic procedures. Can such studies meet the same standards demanded of those, for example, evaluating pharmaceutical agents? This paper describes a research project aimed at examining the interplay and sometimes apparent conflict between ethical standards for human research and standards for methodological rigor in trials of invasive procedures. The paper discusses how the authors plan to develop a set of consensus standards that, if met, would result in substantial and much-needed improvements in the methodological and ethical quality of such trials.