The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Dual-role research and consent by unique specialists

Dual-role research and consent by unique specialists
Dual-role research and consent by unique specialists
Open Peer Commentaries:
At least two considerations challenge Morain, Joffe, and Largent’s (2019) claim that physicians’ activity in consent processes for research involving their own patients (“dual-role consent”) is most justifiable (and potentially morally preferable) where research “approximates” care. First, deviation from a default against such involvement does not best resolve the underlying issues. Changing the content of consent procedures, regardless of who is involved and whether the research is like clinical care, is preferable. Second, the case for the permissibility of dual-role consent and research involving one’s own patients (“dual-role research”) more broadly is most plausible where research necessarily involves deviations from clinical standards.
Bioethics, Informed Consent, Research Ethics, Clinical Ethics
1526-5161
46-48
Da Silva, Michael
05ad649f-8409-4012-8edc-88709b1a3182
Zlotnik Shaul, Randi
fe4ec84c-cea5-4869-a447-b60001f59862
Simpson, Christy
6484299a-7967-4a65-bfa4-713a6525e4b0
Boydell, Katherine
0e3cf2c7-928a-4707-8e21-b22d8abbb670
Da Silva, Michael
05ad649f-8409-4012-8edc-88709b1a3182
Zlotnik Shaul, Randi
fe4ec84c-cea5-4869-a447-b60001f59862
Simpson, Christy
6484299a-7967-4a65-bfa4-713a6525e4b0
Boydell, Katherine
0e3cf2c7-928a-4707-8e21-b22d8abbb670

Da Silva, Michael, Zlotnik Shaul, Randi, Simpson, Christy and Boydell, Katherine (2019) Dual-role research and consent by unique specialists. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19 (4), 46-48. (doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1572817).

Record type: Letter

Abstract

Open Peer Commentaries:
At least two considerations challenge Morain, Joffe, and Largent’s (2019) claim that physicians’ activity in consent processes for research involving their own patients (“dual-role consent”) is most justifiable (and potentially morally preferable) where research “approximates” care. First, deviation from a default against such involvement does not best resolve the underlying issues. Changing the content of consent procedures, regardless of who is involved and whether the research is like clinical care, is preferable. Second, the case for the permissibility of dual-role consent and research involving one’s own patients (“dual-role research”) more broadly is most plausible where research necessarily involves deviations from clinical standards.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 17 April 2019
Keywords: Bioethics, Informed Consent, Research Ethics, Clinical Ethics

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 469663
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/469663
ISSN: 1526-5161
PURE UUID: c30d2247-ed17-419d-b213-a0c40ee6de29

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 21 Sep 2022 17:04
Last modified: 21 Sep 2022 17:04

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Michael Da Silva
Author: Randi Zlotnik Shaul
Author: Christy Simpson
Author: Katherine Boydell

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×