Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects

When may a physician enroll a patient in clinical research? An adequate answer to this question requires clarification of trust-based obligations of the state and the physician-researcher respectively to the patient-subject. The state relies on the voluntarism of patient-subjects to advance the public interest in science. Accordingly, it is obligated to protect the agent-neutral interests of patient-subjects through promulgating standards that secure these interests. Component analysis is the only comprehensive and systematic specification of regulatory standards for benefit-harm evaluation by research ethics committees (RECs). Clinical equipoise, a standard in component analysis, ensures the treatment arms of a randomised control trial are consistent with competent medical care. It thus serves to protect agent-neutral welfare interests of the patient-subject. But REC review occurs prior to enrolment, highlighting the independent responsibility of the physician-researcher to protect the agent-relative welfare interests of the patient-subject. In a novel interpretation of the duty of care, we argue for a “clinical judgment principle” which requires the physician-researcher to exercise judgment in the interests of the patient-subject taking into account evidence on treatments and the patient-subject‘s circumstances.

[1]  C. Weijer,et al.  When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits? , 2004, Nature Medicine.

[2]  Seema K. Shah,et al.  How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? , 2004, JAMA.

[3]  H. Brody,et al.  The Clinician-Investigator: Unavoidable but Manageable Tension , 2003, Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal.

[4]  F. Miller,et al.  A critique of clinical equipoise. Therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. , 2003, The Hastings center report.

[5]  D. Rosenstein,et al.  The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  T. Lemmens,et al.  Avoiding a Jekyll-And-Hyde Approach to the Ethics of Clinical Research and Practice , 2002, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[7]  Charles Weijer,et al.  Clinical Equipoise and Not the Uncertainty Principle Is the Moral Underpinning of the Randomised Controlled Trial , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  C. Weijer,et al.  Moral solutions in assessing research risk. , 2000, IRB.

[9]  C. Grady,et al.  What makes clinical research ethical? , 2000, JAMA.

[10]  L. Kopelman Children as research subjects: a dilemma. , 2000, The Journal of medicine and philosophy.

[11]  C. Weijer,et al.  In loco parentis. Minimal risk as an ethical threshold for research upon children. , 1993, The Hastings Center report.

[12]  S Hellman,et al.  Of mice but not men. Problems of the randomized clinical trial. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  B. Freedman Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  M. Pike,et al.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples. , 1977, British Journal of Cancer.

[15]  P. Armitage,et al.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. , 1976, British Journal of Cancer.