Search

We undertook a qualitative e-mail survey of federally-funded principal investigators of their views of the US human subjects protection system, intended to identify the range of investigator attitudes. This was an exploratory study with a 14% response rate. Twenty-eight principal investigators responded; their comments were analyzed to show underlying themes, which are here presented along with supporting quotations.There was consensus that it is important to protect human subjects from research abuse, but disagreement over how well the IRB system is functioning. Some researchers felt that the system is effective and serves its purpose well. Of those who support the system, some endorse its methods, purpose, and daily functioning, as they experience it, without reservation. Others, while expressing some frustration, feel that the purpose is important and their local IRB does its best to make a difficult system work well.Those investigators who were more harshly critical commented on multiple flaws in the system, including (1) consent forms that are inappropriate and incomprehensible, (2) an emphasis on minutiae, and (3) concern with protecting the institution more than research subjects. Respondents told us that the IRB system is a particular burden for research in neurology, emergency medical conditions, repositories, and social sciences in general; a more comprehensive study might identify other problematic areas. Significant concern was expressed about the cost, inefficiency, and irrationality of IRB review. The IRB system works well for some researchers, but our results indicate that other investigators feel the costs outweigh the benefits.

Objective: To ascertain the views of physicians and physician leaders toward the legalization of physician-assisted suicide., Design: Confidential mail questionnaire., Participants: A nationwide random sample of physicians of all ages and specialties, and all members of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates as of April 1996., Measurements: Demographic and practice characteristics and attitude toward legalization of physician-assisted suicide., Main Results: Usable questionnaires were returned by 658 of 930 eligible physicians in the nationwide random sample (71%) and 315 of 390 eligible physicians in the House of Delegates (81%). In the nationwide random sample, 44.5% favored legalization (16.4% definitely and 28.1% probably), 33.9% opposed legalization (20.4% definitely and 13.5% probably), and 22% were unsure. Opposition to legalization was strongly associated with self-defined politically conservative beliefs, religious affiliation, and the importance of religion to the respondent (P <.001). Among members of the AMA House of Delegates, 23.5% favored legalization (7.3% definitely and 16.2% probably), 61.6% opposed legalization (43.5% definitely and 18.1% probably), and 15% were unsure; their views differed significantly from those of the nationwide random sample (P <.001). Given the choice, a majority of both groups would prefer no law at all, with physician-assisted suicide being neither legal nor illegal., Conclusions: Members of the AMA House of Delegates strongly oppose physician-assisted suicide, but rank-and-file physicians show no consensus either for or against its legalization. Although the debate is sometimes adversarial, most physicians in the United States are uncertain or endorse moderate views on assisted suicide.