Suchergebnisse

Considerable time and resources are invested in the ethics review process. We present qualitative data on how human research ethics committee members and health researchers perceive the role and function of the committee. The findings are based on interviews with 34 Australian ethics committee members and 54 health researchers. Although all participants agreed that the primary role of the ethics committee was to protect participants, there was disagreement regarding the additional roles undertaken by committees. Of particular concern were the perceptions from some ethics committee members and researchers that ethics committees were working to protect the institution's interests, as well as being over-protective toward research participants. This has the potential to lead to poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers.

Whereas investigators have directed considerable criticism against Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), the desirable characteristics of IRBs have not previously been empirically determined. A sample of 886 experienced biomedical and social and behavioral scientists rated 45 descriptors of IRB actions and functions as to their importance. Predictions derived from organizational justice research findings in other work settings were generally borne out. Investigators place high value on the fairness and respectful consideration of their IRBs. Expected differences between biomedical and social behavioral researchers and other variables were unfounded. Recommendations are offered for educating IRBs to accord researchers greater respect and fair treatment.

The release of a scathing House Ethics Committee report may hasten a vote to expel Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. The committee's report accuses Santos of criminality, ethical violations and a wide range of falsehoods.

Italy has recently introduced regulations that profoundly change the arrangement of ethics committees. Specifically, their numbers have been reduced from more than 200 to a few dozen.The decree defining the criteria for their composition and functioning includes regulations intended to improve efficiency and efficacy. The present article provides a brief overview of the new provisions and identifies some critical aspects.

With the recent Clinical Trials Directive, a degree of harmonisation into research ethics committees (RECs) across Europe, including the time taken to assess a trial proposal and the kinds of issues a committee should take into account, has been introduced by the European Union (EU). How four different member states—Hungary, Portugal, Sweden and the UK—have chosen to implement the directive is shown. Although this has resulted in four very different ways of structuring RECs, similar themes are present in all four cases, such as centralisation of control over RECs within member states, harmonisation of REC procedures across the EU and increased role of political decision making with regard to such committees.

Background Rationing and allocation decisions at the clinical level – bedside rationing – entail complex dilemmas that clinicians and managers often find difficult to handle. There is a lack of mechanisms and aids for promoting fair decisions, especially in hard cases. Reports indicate that clinical ethics committees (CECs) sometimes handle cases that involve bedside rationing dilemmas. Can CECs have a legitimate role to play in bedside rationing? Main text Aided by two frameworks for legitimate priority setting, we discuss how CECs can contribute to enhanced epistemic, procedural and political legitimacy in bedside rationing decisions. Drawing on previous work we present brief case vignettes and outline several potential roles that CECs may play, and then discuss whether these might contribute to rationing decisions becoming legitimate. In the process, key prerequisites for such legitimacy are identified. Legitimacy places demands on aspects such as the CEC's deliberation process, the involvement of stakeholders, transparency of process, the opportunity to appeal decisions, and the competence of CEC members. On these conditions, CECs can help strengthen the legitimacy of some of the rationing decisions clinicians and managers have to make. Conclusions On specified conditions, CECs can have a well-justified advisory role to play in order to enhance the legitimacy of bedside rationing decisions.