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
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
17 April 2019
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), .
(doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1572817).
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: 17 Mar 2024 04:12
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