Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Section I Information problems
- Section II End of life care
- Section III Pregnant women and children
- Section IV Genetics and biotechnology
- Section V Research ethics
- Introduction
- 25 Research ethics
- 26 Innovation in medical care: examples from surgery
- 27 Clinical trials
- 28 Epidemiological research
- 29 Clinical research and the physician–patient relationship: the dual roles of physician and researcher
- 30 Financial conflict of interest in medical research
- 31 Embryo and fetal research
- Section VI Health systems and institutions
- Section VII Using clinical ethics to make an impact in healthcare
- Section VIII Global health ethics
- Section IX Religious and cultural perspectives in bioethics
- Section X Specialty bioethics
- Index
- References
29 - Clinical research and the physician–patient relationship: the dual roles of physician and researcher
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Section I Information problems
- Section II End of life care
- Section III Pregnant women and children
- Section IV Genetics and biotechnology
- Section V Research ethics
- Introduction
- 25 Research ethics
- 26 Innovation in medical care: examples from surgery
- 27 Clinical trials
- 28 Epidemiological research
- 29 Clinical research and the physician–patient relationship: the dual roles of physician and researcher
- 30 Financial conflict of interest in medical research
- 31 Embryo and fetal research
- Section VI Health systems and institutions
- Section VII Using clinical ethics to make an impact in healthcare
- Section VIII Global health ethics
- Section IX Religious and cultural perspectives in bioethics
- Section X Specialty bioethics
- Index
- References
Summary
Dr. F, an oncologist in a small community practice, has been asked by a pharmaceutical company to conduct early-phase clinical trials involving several new investigational chemotherapeutic agents that do not yet have FDA approval. These would be very small phase I trials, with the possibility of conducting some phase I/II and phase II trials in the future as well. The reimbursement he will receive for the research will substantially increase the income of his practice, provided that he is able to recruit and retain a sufficient number of subjects. “More importantly, though,” Dr. F thinks to himself, “I have so little to offer many of my sickest patients now. The best thing about doing clinical research is being able to offer them something new, that just might be their best hope.”
Dr. G treats patients with hemophilia. Although treatments have improved dramatically in recent years, hemophilia is a devastating, and devastatingly expensive, chronic disease. Because she has high hopes about promising experimental technologies, she also conducts research. She prides herself on the research partnerships she develops with patient–subjects who seek to contribute to the development of better treatments. Recently, however, she has received inquiries from patients with hemophilia from around the world who want to enroll in her research because the experimental interventions are provided free of charge. These patients tell her that they cannot afford standard therapies, and that enrolling in her research is their only hope for treatment. Dr. G is troubled by this reasoning, and discusses it with a colleague, who responds, “Lots of people enroll in research to get treatment.[…]
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics , pp. 214 - 221Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
Abigail Alliance v. Eschenbach [2006] US App. LEXIS 10874 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
(1996). Commentary: examining the ethics of human subjects research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 6: 283–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Clarifying the ethics of clinical research: a path toward avoiding the therapeutic misconception. Am J Bioethics 2: 22–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1982). The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry 5: 319–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , and (1987). False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 17: 20–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2004). Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: frequency and risk factors. IRB, Ethics Hum Res 26: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2003). The clinician–investigator: unavoidable but manageable tension 13. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 13: 329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974). Informed consent in catastrophic disease research and treatment. U Penn Law Rev 123: 340–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2003). Clinical research and the physician–patient relationship. Ann Int Med 138: 669–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1980). Physician–investigator, patient–subject: exploring the logic and the tension. J Med Philos 5: 215–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , and (1998). Genetic research as therapy: implications of “gene therapy” for informed consent. J Law Med Ethics 26: 38–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (1995). Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 13: 1062–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2000). Quantitative analysis of ethical issues in phase I trials: a survey of 144 advanced cancer patients. IRB, Ethics Hum Res 22: 6–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2002). The ubiquity and utility of the therapeutic misconception. Soc Philos Pol 19: 271–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Easter, M. M., Henderson, G. E., Davis, A. M., Churchill, L. R., and King, N. M. P. (2007). The many meanings of care in clinical research. In The View from Here: Social Science and Bioethics, ed. , , and . Oxford: Blackwell for Sociology of Health and Illness.Google Scholar
Estrada v. Jacques (1984) 321 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
and (2006). Equipoise and the criteria for reasonable action. J Law Med Ethics 34: 441–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1987). Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317: 141–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1990). Placebo-controlled trials and the logic of clinical purpose. IRB, Rev Hum Subj Res 12: 1.Google ScholarPubMed
, , and (1996a). Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research. I. Empirical and methodological myths. J Law Med Ethics 24: 243–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1996b). Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research. II. Ethical, legal and regulatory myths. J Law Med Ethics 24: 252–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002). Effective trial design need not conflict with good patient care. Am J Bioethics 2: 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1975). Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation: A Sociological Study of the Conduct and Regulation of Clinical Research. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute (2001) 782 A.2d 807 (Md. 2001).
(2002). Evidence, belief, and action: the failure of equipoise to resolve the ethical tension in the randomized clinical trial. J Law Med Ethics 30: 375–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2004a). Uncertain benefit: investigators' views and communications in early phase gene transfer trials. Mol Ther 10: 225–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2004b). Vulnerability to influence: a two-way street. Am J Bioethics 4: 50–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , et al. (2006). Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials. Soc Sci Med 62: 239–53. [Epub 5 July 2005.]CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2003). Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB, Ethics Hum Res 25: 11–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2002). Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase 1 oncology trials. N Engl J Med 347: 2134–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2005). Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med 352: 895–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2002). Views of American oncologists about the purposes of clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 94: 1847–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2001). Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross–sectional survey. Lancet 358: 1772–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , et al. (1996). Trust: the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Cent Rep 26: 25–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , et al. (2005). Consent forms and the therapeutic misconception: the example of gene transfer research. IRB, Ethics Hum Res 27: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). Conflicts of interest in medical research: how much conflict should exceed legal boundaries?J Biolaw Bus 8: 35–45.Google ScholarPubMed
and (2002). Avoiding a Jekyll-and-Hyde approach to the ethics of clinical research and practice. Am J Bioethics 2: 14–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2002). Nonfinancial conflicts of interest in research. N Engl J Med 347: 759–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2002). What makes placebo-controlled trials unethical?Am J Bioethics 2: 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2003). A critique of clinical equipoise: therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hastings Cent Rep 33: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2003). The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials. N Engl J Med 348: 1383–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2000). Phase I cancer trials. A collusion of misunderstanding. Hastings Cent Rep 30: 34–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2006). Fiduciary obligation in clinical research. J Law Med Ethics 34: 424–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Office for Protection from Research Risks.Google Scholar
(1949). Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, pp. 181–2. (http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/references/nurcode.htm).Google Scholar
Re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation [1995] 874 F. Supp. 796 (S.D. Ohio 1995).
TD v. New York State Office of Mental Health (1996) 650 N.Y.S.2d 173.
Toth v. Community Hospital at Glen Cove [1968] 22 N.Y.2d 255; 239 N.E.2d 368; 292 N.Y.S.2d 440 (N.Y. Ct. App.1968).
World Medical Association (1964). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects [revised 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2000]. Washington, DC: World Medical Association (http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm).
- 4
- Cited by