Search

Advertising by health care institutions has increased steadily in recent years. While direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising is subject to unique oversight by the Federal Drug Administration, advertisements for health care services are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and treated no differently from advertisements for consumer goods. In this article, we argue that decisions about pursuing health care services are distinguished by informational asymmetries, high stakes, and patient vulnerabilities, grounding fiduciary responsibilities on the part of health care providers and health care institutions. Using examples, we illustrate how common advertising techniques may mislead patients and compromise fiduciary relationships, thereby posing ethical risks to patients, providers, health care institutions, and society. We conclude by proposing that these risks justify new standards for advertising when considered as part of the moral obligation of health care institutions and suggest that mechanisms currently in place to regulate advertising for prescription pharmaceuticals should be applied to advertising for health care services more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article presents the author's views regarding the revised version of the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) in 2013. Topics include the changes in the new version related to the registration of research and disclosure of results and the integrity of scientific information. The justification of the responsive requirement in the Declaration through the revision is also discussed.

Focuses on the possible implication of research ethics for undue inducements and reasonable risks. Claim that if incentives are too attractive they will induce people to participate who otherwise would not; Context in which market mechanisms can be used to provide incentives sufficient to attract a diverse group of participants to research; Key factors that distinguishes good deals from morally problematic offers.

The author comments on the article "Behavioral Equipoise: A Way to Resolve Ethical Stalemates in Clinical Research," by Peter A. Ubel and Robert Silbergleit. He states that their claim clinical trials are an important mechanism to resolve conflicts over treatment options is not a new one. He comments on the importance to examine the roots of clinical disagreements before designing clinical trials. He agrees that Bayesian approaches can be used to address the subjectivity of stakeholders.

In the article the author reflects on the fair benefits approach for utilizing human subjects from developing countries in international research. He comments on the article in this issue "How to Do Research Fairly in an Unjust World," by A.J. Ballantyne. He opines that there are many issues besides exploitation that need to be addressed in order to fairly conduct international research.

The article presents the author's view on the concept of equipoise in clinical medicine and medical research. The author suggests that there may be other reasons to resist grounding clinical equipoise in role-related obligations of either physicians and researchers. Arguments are presented on the concept of equipoise in international research. There are fundamental tensions between the traditional understanding of the therapeutic obligation and the requirements of clinical equipoise.

Comments on an article written by Rosamond Rhodes concerning research ethics in the U.S. Need to rethink the conception of autonomy and the role of informed consent in research; Changes in research ethics proposed by Rhodes; Clarification of the issues concerning the goal of research.