Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:53:35.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulating Research and Experimentation: A View from the UK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Sheila A.M. McLean
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A medical profession which did not seek improved means to conquer disease would be condemned for dereliction of its duty, Members of the public will not accept the current state of the medical arts as finite but feel justified in expecting the development of more effective therapies for illness, and the promotion of improved means of preventive care.

With this assertion, the distinguished academic, Bernard Dickens, places research firmly in the domain of the public interest. Foster agrees, saying that, “[t]o improve medical care as much as we can, if not to perfect it, means that we have to accept the need for research.” Giesen adds a further emphasis to the search for medical advancements, saying that “freedom of research and scientific inquiry is, in itself, an important aspect of open societies.“

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , Winter 2004 , pp. 604 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2004

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

Dickens, B.M., “Human Rights in Medical Experimentation,” Israeli Yearbook on Human Rights 9 (1979): 23.Google Scholar
Foster, C., The Ethics of Medical Research on Humans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001): at 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giesen, D., “Civil Liability of Physicians for New Methods of Treatment and Experimentation: A Comparative Examination,” Medical Law Review 3 (1995): 22–52, at 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J.K., Smith, McCall R.A., and Laurie, G.T., Law and Medical Ethics, 6th ed (London: Butterworths, 2002): at 573Google Scholar
Nicholson, R., Medical Research with Children: Ethics, Law, and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986): at 25.Google Scholar
1955 Sess. Cas. 200.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority, 1 All E.R. 635 (1985).Google Scholar
Hunter v Hanley, 1955 Sess. Cas. at 206.Google Scholar
Lloyd’s Rep Med 236 (2004).Google Scholar
Id. at 245.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 246.Google Scholar
Lloyd’s Rep Med 207 (2004).Google Scholar
Lloyd’s Rep Med 211 (2004).Google Scholar
Id. at 209.Google Scholar
Id. at 245.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
These committees were first recommended by the Royal College of Physicians of London in 1967, Royal College of Physicians (RCP) 1967. See also the DHSS advisory circular, Supervision of the Ethics of Clinical Research Investigations and Fetal Research (1975) HSC (IS) 153. Modern alterations to this position will be considered infra.Google Scholar
See GMC, Research: The Role and Responsibilities of Doctors (2002), available at <http://www.gmc-uk.org/standards/research.htm> (last visited October 11, 2004).+(last+visited+October+11,+2004).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care (London: Department of Health, 2004); Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees in Scotland, Edinburgh (2001), available at <http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/cso/aboutcso/RECgov.doc> (last visited October 11, 2004).+(last+visited+October+11,+2004).>Google Scholar
Chalmers, I., and Lindley, R.I., “Double Standards on Informed Consent to Treatment,” in Doyal, L. and Tobias, J.S., eds., Informed Consent in Medical Research (London: BMJ Books, 2001): 266–275, at 269.Google Scholar
Levine, R.J., “Uncertainty in Clinical Research,” Law, Medicine Health Care 16 (1998):174–182, at 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, I. and Grubb, A., eds., Principles of Medical Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998): at 1011–1012.Google Scholar
Katz, J., “The Consent Principle of the Nuremberg Code: Its Significance Then and Now,” in Annas, G.J. and Grodin, M. A. (eds), The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code (New York: Oxford, 1992): 227–239, at 227.Google Scholar
Its most recent version was agreed at Edinburgh in 2000.Google Scholar
Childress, J.F., “Nuremberg’s Legacy: Some Ethical Reflections,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 43, no. 3 (2000): 347–61 at 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Article 5.Google Scholar
Article 8.Google Scholar
Article 25.Google Scholar
Evans, D. and Evans, M.A., Decent Proposal: Ethical Review of Clinical Research (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1996): at 17.Google Scholar
Redmon, R.B., “How Children can be Respected as “Ends” Yet Still be Used as Subjects in Non-therapeutic Research,” Journal of Medical Ethics 12 (1986): 77–91, at 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Although this is not always the case. In the case of R. v. Brown, 1 All E.R. 545 (1996), consensual sado-masochistic practices undertaken in private by adult homosexuals were nonetheless held to be criminal. This was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. United Kingdom 24 E.H.R.R. 39 (1997).Google Scholar
Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v United Kingdom 24 E.H.R.R. at 66.Google Scholar
R. v Brown, 1 All E.R. at 574.Google Scholar
Giesen, , supra note 3, at 22–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 38.Google Scholar
Baum, M., “The Ethics of Clinical Research,” in Byrne, P., ed., Ethics and Law in Health Care and Research (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1990): 1–8, at 3.Google Scholar
Mason, J.K., Smith, McCall R.A. and Laurie, G.T., op cit, pp 585–586.Google Scholar
McLean, S.A.M. and Mason, J.K., Legal and Ethical Aspects of Healthcare (London: GMM, 2003): at 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 238.Google Scholar
The entirety of this debate forms part of an excellent analysis of medical research in Doyal, L. and Tobias, S., eds., Informed Consent in Medical Research (London: BMJ Books, 2001): at 63 et seq.Google Scholar
Dennis, M., et al., “Evaluation of a Stroke Family Care Worker: Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial,” British Medical Journal 314 (1997):1071–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R., “Should the BMJ reject all studies that do not include informed consent?” British Medical Journal 314 (1997):1059–60, at 1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, S.A.M., “Commentary: Not Seeking Consent Means Not Treating the Patient with Respect,” British Medical Journal 314 (1997):1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolitho v. City and Hackney Health Authority, 39 BMLR1 (1997); Pearce v. United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust, 48 BMLR 118 (1999).Google Scholar
2 All E.R. 118 (1957).Google Scholar
Gold v. Haringey Health Authority, 2 All E.R, 888 (1987).Google Scholar
1 All E.R. 643 (1985).Google Scholar
Maclean, A.R., “Beyond Bolam and Bolitho,” Medical Law International 5, no 3 (2002): 205–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simms v Simms, supra cit, at p. 244Google Scholar
McHardy v. Dundee, SLT (Notes) 19 (1960).Google Scholar
53 DLR 2d. 436 (1965).Google Scholar
Kennedy, and Grubb, , supra note 24, at 735.Google Scholar
McLean, , supra note 45.Google Scholar
This situation was changed in 2001 by the Department of Health’s Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees, available at <http://www.doh.gov.uk/research/documents/gafrec.pdf>, and in Scotland by the document Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees in Scotland (2001), available at <http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/cso/aboutcso/RECgov.doc>).,+and+in+Scotland+by+the+document+Governance+Arrangements+for+NHS+Research+Ethics+Committees+in+Scotland+(2001),+available+at+).>Google Scholar
Directive 2001/20/EC (April 4, 2001) of the European Parliament and of the Council.Google Scholar
Section 5 of The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004.Google Scholar
For one kind of objection, see, for example, Norman, J., “New System for Ethics Approval is Unacceptable,” British Medical Journal 328 (2004):1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beecher, H.K., “Ethics and Clinical Research,” N. Engl J. Med. 274 (1966): 1354–60, at 1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappworth, M., Human Guinea Pigs: Experimentation on Man (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1967).Google Scholar
Capron, A.M. “Is National, Independent Oversight Needed for the Protection of Human Subjects?” Accountability in Research 7 (1999): 283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 283.Google Scholar
The events, and the subsequent judicial inquiry into them, are discussed in Campbell, A.V., “An ‘Unfortunate Experiment,’” Bioethics 3 (1989): 59. For further analysis, see Paul, C., “The New Zealand Cancer Study: Could it Happen Again?” British Medical Journal 297 (1988): 533; Gillett, G., “NZ Medicine after Cartwright,” British Medical Journal 300 (1990): 893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, (1992), supra note 25, at 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Medical Association, The Medical Profession & Human Rights: Handbook for a Changing Agenda (London: Zed Books/BMA Books, 2001): at 204.Google Scholar
Childress, J. F., “Nuremberg’s Legacy: Some Ethical Reflections,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 43, no. 3 (2000): 347–61, at 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J., “Human Experimentation and Human Rights,” Saint Louis University Law Journal 38 (1993): 7–54, at 9.Google Scholar
Levine, C., “Has AIDS changed the Ethics of Human Subjects Research?” Law, Medicine and Health Care 12 (1988):167–73, at 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar