首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


The Duty to Rescue and the Limits of Confidentiality
Authors:Michael Boylan
Affiliation:Marymount University
Abstract:Surveys and routine clinical procedures applied in research protocols are typically considered only minimally risky to participants. The apparent benign nature of "minimal risk" tasks increases the chance that investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) will overlook the probability that clinical tools will identify signs, symptoms, or definitive test results that are clinically-relevant to subjects' welfare. "Minimal risk" procedures may also pose a particular hazard to participants in clinical research by increasing the therapeutic misconception because the tasks mimic clinical care and are often conducted in clinical settings. Investigators should anticipate which measures could yield clinically-important findings and should describe explicit plans for data monitoring, disclosure, and follow-up. Protocols that include reliable and valid clinical measures should prompt a more detailed risk assessment by the IRB, even when the tasks meet the regulatory criteria for minimal physical, psychological, or emotional risk.
Keywords:RESEARCH ETHICS  BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH  INFORMED CONSENT  DISCLOSURE  DEPRESSION  NONTHERAPEUTIC HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION  INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB)
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号