Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:01:29.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Much Influence Do Various Members Have within Research Ethics Committees?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Paul M. McNeill ,
Catherine A. Berglund  and
Ian W. Webster
Paul M. McNeill
Affiliation:
An associate professor in the School of Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Australia, where he teaches law and ethics to medical students, has been studying research ethics committees and hospital ethics committees, and recently wrote The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation
Catherine A. Berglund
Affiliation:
An associate fellow in the Science and Technology Studies Department, University of Wollongong, Australia
Ian W. Webster
Affiliation:
Professor of Public Health and chairman of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of New South Wales, Australia,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout the world, research ethics committees are relied on to prevent unethical research and protect research subjects. Given that reliance, the composition of committees and the manner in which decisions are arrived at by committee members is of critical importance. There have been Instances in which an inadequate review process has resulted in serious harm to research subjects. Deficient committee review was identified as one of the factors In a study in New Zealand which resulted in the suffering and death of many women diagnosed with carcinoma in situ.

Type
Special Section: Research Ethics: Ethics at the Borders of Medical Research
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , Fall 1994 , pp. 522 - 532
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. McNeill, PM. The implications for Australia of the New Zealand Report of the cervical cancer inquiry: no cause for complacency. Medical Journal of Australia 1989;150:264–71.Google ScholarPubMed

2. McNeill, PM. Research ethics review in Australia, Europe and North America. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1989; 11(3):4–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Levine, RJ. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. 2nd ed.Baltimore, Maryland: Urgan & Schwarzenberg, 1986.Google Scholar

4. Royal College of Physicians of London. Guidelines on the Practice of Ethics Committees in Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2nd ed.London: Royal College of Physicians of London, 1990.Google Scholar

5. National Health and Medical Research Council. The National Health and Medical Research Council and Ethical Regulation – a short history. Australian Health Review 1986;9(3):234–8.Google Scholar

6. Ramsey, P. The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1970:589–91.Google Scholar

7. Delgado, R, Leskovac, H. Informed consent in human experimentation: bridging the gap between ethical thought and current practice. UCLA Law Review 1986;34:66–130 (at 97–8).Google ScholarPubMed

8. See note 5. National Health and Medical Research Council. 1986;9(3):235.Google Scholar

9. National Health and Medical Research Council. Statement on Human Experimentation and Supplementary Notes. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing, 1992.Google Scholar

10. McNeill, PM, Berglund, CA, Webster, IW. Reviewing the reviewers: a survey of institutional ethics committees in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 1990;152:289–96.Google ScholarPubMed

11. National Commission for the Protection of Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Report and Recommendations: Institutional Review Boards. DHEW publication no. (OS) 78–0008. Appendix to Report and Recommendations: Institutional Review Boards. DHEW publication no. (OS) 78–0009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978:1–5, 1–31, 1–178.Google Scholar

12. Walters, WAW. Institutional Ethics Committees. Unpublished paper presented at Bioethics Course, Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics, Warburton, Victoria, Australia, 8–12 December 1986.Google Scholar

13. Waller, L. The role and functions of institutional ethics committees in medical research a commentary. In: Santamaria, JN, Tonti-Filippini, N, eds. Proceedings of the 1984 Conference on Bioethics.Melbourne:St. Vincents Bioethics Centre, 1984:162.Google Scholar

14. See note 10. McNeill, et al. 1990;152:289–96.Google Scholar

15. McNeill, PM, Berglund, CA, Webster, IW. Do Australian researchers accept committee review and conduct ethical research? Social Science and Medicine 1992;35(3):217–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. See note 10. McNeill, et al. 1990;152:291.Google Scholar

17. See note 11. National Commission. 1978:1–5, 1–31, 1–178.Google Scholar

18. Gillet, G. The new ethical committee: their nature and role. New Zealand Medical Journal 1989;102:314–5.Google Scholar

19. Riis, P. Experience with committees and councils for research ethics in Scandanavia. In: Berg, K, Tranoy, KE, eds. Research Ethics. New York: Liss, 1983:123–9.Google ScholarPubMed

20. See note 19. Riis, . 1983:123–9.Google Scholar

21. Department of Health (Britain). Local Research Ethics Committees. London: Departments of Health and Social Security, 04 1991.Google Scholar

22. Veatch, RM. Human experimentation committees: professional or representative? Hastings Center Report 1975;5(5):31–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. See note 9. National Health and Medical Research Council, 1992.Google Scholar

24. Muschamp, D. Who should sit on an institutional ethics committee? In: Hudson, J, ed. Proceedings of the Conference: Can Ethics Be Done by Committee?Melbourne:Monash University Centre for Bioethics, 1988:50–9.Google Scholar

25. Editorial. Guardians of ethics. British Medical Journal 1973;4:502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Royal College of Physicians of London. Guidelines on the Practice of Ethics Committees in Medical Research. London: Royal College of Physicians of London, 09 1984.Google Scholar

27. See note 4. Royal College of Physicians of London. 1990.Google Scholar

28. See note 9. National Health and Medical Research Council. 1992.Google Scholar

29. National Health and Medical Research Council. Report on Workshops on the Constitution and Functions of Institutional Ethics Committees in Australia 1984–85. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 11 1985.Google Scholar

30. See note 24. Muschamp, . 1988;55.Google Scholar

31. Kuhse, H, Singer, P. Should the Baby Live? New York: Oxford University Press, 1985:182.Google Scholar

32. See note 29. National Health and Medical Research Council. 1985:7.Google Scholar

33. Medical Research Council of Canada. Guidelines on Research Involving Human Subjects. Ottawa, Ontario: Medical Research Council of Canada, 11 1987.Google Scholar

34. Swan, N. Is there a clinical role for ethics committees? In: Hudson, J, ed. Proceedings of the Conference: Can Ethics Be Done by Committee?Melbourne:Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics, 1988:92–7.Google Scholar

35. See note 10. McNeill, et al. 1990; 152:291, 294.Google Scholar

36. See note 10. McNeill, et al. 1990; 152:291.Google Scholar

37. See note 9. National Health and Medical Research Council. 1992.Google Scholar

38. See note 1. McNeill, . 1989;150:264–71.Google Scholar

39. Annas, GJ. Consent to the artificial heart: the lion and the crocodiles. Hastings Center Report 1983;13:20–22.Google ScholarPubMed

40. Annas, GJ. Baby Fae: the “anything goes” school of human experimentation. Hastings Center Report 1985;15(1):15–7.Google Scholar

41. Bergkamp, L. Research ethics committees and the regulation of medical experimentation with human beings in the Netherlands. Medicine and Law 1988;7:65–72.Google ScholarPubMed

42. Lipsett, MB, Fletcher, JC, Secundy, M. Research review at NIH. Hastings Center Report 1979;9(1): 18–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43. Gerber, P, Eadie, M. Ethics and drug trials. Medical Journal of Australia 1988;149:229–30.Google ScholarPubMed

44. See note 10. McNeill, et al. 1990; 152:291.Google Scholar