Who Lives? Who Dies?: Ethical Criteria in Patient Selection
Each class of subjects that one might consider as incompetent e. Even for these persons, however, respect requires giving them the opportunity to choose to the extent they are able, whether or not to participate in research. The objections of these subjects to involvement should be honored, unless the research entails providing them a therapy unavailable elsewhere. Respect for persons also requires seeking the permission of other parties in order to protect the subjects from harm. Such persons are thus respected both by acknowledging their own wishes and by the use of third parties to protect them from harm.
The third parties chosen should be those who are most likely to understand the incompetent subject's situation and to act in that person's best interest. The person authorized to act on behalf of the subject should be given an opportunity to observe the research as it proceeds in order to be able to withdraw the subject from the research, if such action appears in the subject's best interest.
An agreement to participate in research constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily given.
This element of informed consent requires conditions free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion occurs when an overt threat of harm is intentionally presented by one person to another in order to obtain compliance. Undue influence, by contrast, occurs through an offer of an excessive, unwarranted, inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to obtain compliance.
Also, inducements that would ordinarily be acceptable may become undue influences if the subject is especially vulnerable. Unjustifiable pressures usually occur when persons in positions of authority or commanding influence -- especially where possible sanctions are involved -- urge a course of action for a subject. A continuum of such influencing factors exists, however, and it is impossible to state precisely where justifiable persuasion ends and undue influence begins. But undue influence would include actions such as manipulating a person's choice through the controlling influence of a close relative and threatening to withdraw health services to which an individual would otherwise be entitled.
Assessment of Risks and Benefits. Thus, the assessment presents both an opportunity and a responsibility to gather systematic and comprehensive information about proposed research. For the investigator, it is a means to examine whether the proposed research is properly designed.
- Product details!
- The Illustrated Story of Communications - Through Time and Space.
- The Political Economy of Israel: From Ideology to Stagnation.
- Who Lives? Who Dies?: Ethical Criteria in Patient Selection.
- Read the Belmont Report.
- Transforming Schools Through Collaborative Leadership (Student Outcomes and the Reform of Education, 2);
For a review committee, it is a method for determining whether the risks that will be presented to subjects are justified. For prospective subjects, the assessment will assist the determination whether or not to participate. The Nature and Scope of Risks and Benefits.
The term "risk" refers to a possibility that harm may occur. However, when expressions such as "small risk" or "high risk" are used, they usually refer often ambiguously both to the chance probability of experiencing a harm and the severity magnitude of the envisioned harm. The term "benefit" is used in the research context to refer to something of positive value related to health or welfare.
Unlike, "risk," "benefit" is not a term that expresses probabilities. Risk is properly contrasted to probability of benefits, and benefits are properly contrasted with harms rather than risks of harm. Many kinds of possible harms and benefits need to be taken into account. There are, for example, risks of psychological harm, physical harm, legal harm, social harm and economic harm and the corresponding benefits. While the most likely types of harms to research subjects are those of psychological or physical pain or injury, other possible kinds should not be overlooked.
Risks and benefits of research may affect the individual subjects, the families of the individual subjects, and society at large or special groups of subjects in society. Previous codes and Federal regulations have required that risks to subjects be outweighed by the sum of both the anticipated benefit to the subject, if any, and the anticipated benefit to society in the form of knowledge to be gained from the research.
In balancing these different elements, the risks and benefits affecting the immediate research subject will normally carry special weight. On the other hand, interests other than those of the subject may on some occasions be sufficient by themselves to justify the risks involved in the research, so long as the subjects' rights have been protected. Beneficence thus requires that we protect against risk of harm to subjects and also that we be concerned about the loss of the substantial benefits that might be gained from research.
The Systematic Assessment of Risks and Benefits. It is commonly said that benefits and risks must be "balanced" and shown to be "in a favorable ratio.
Only on rare occasions will quantitative techniques be available for the scrutiny of research protocols. However, the idea of systematic, nonarbitrary analysis of risks and benefits should be emulated insofar as possible.
Who Lives? Who Dies?: Ethical Criteria in Patient Selection
This ideal requires those making decisions about the justifiability of research to be thorough in the accumulation and assessment of information about all aspects of the research, and to consider alternatives systematically. This procedure renders the assessment of research more rigorous and precise, while making communication between review board members and investigators less subject to misinterpretation, misinformation and conflicting judgments.
Thus, there should first be a determination of the validity of the presuppositions of the research; then the nature, probability and magnitude of risk should be distinguished with as much clarity as possible. The method of ascertaining risks should be explicit, especially where there is no alternative to the use of such vague categories as small or slight risk. It should also be determined whether an investigator's estimates of the probability of harm or benefits are reasonable, as judged by known facts or other available studies.
- Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing: 21th International Workshop, LCPC 2008, Edmonton, Canada, July 31 - August 2, 2008, Revised Selected Papers ... Computer Science and General Issues).
- No customer reviews!
- Transformation in Prayer, 99 Sayings by M. Basil Pennington (99 Words to Live By).
- Laugh and Learn: 95 Ways to Use Humor for More Effective Teaching and Training.
- John F. Kilner , Who Lives? Who Dies?: Ethical Criteria in Patient Selection . Reviewed by.
- Software Engineering — ESEC/FSE ’99: 7th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with the 7th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering Toulouse, France, September 6–10, 1999 Proceedings?
- Who Lives? Who Dies?: Ethical Criteria in Patient Selection by John F. Kilner - tdotymognake.cf?
- FNP Nursing and Medication Safety.
- Who Lives? Who Dies?: Ethical Criteria in Patient Selection | John Frederic Kilner | download.
- Spinal Opiate Analgesia: Experimental and Clinical Studies.
Finally, assessment of the justifiability of research should reflect at least the following considerations: i Brutal or inhumane treatment of human subjects is never morally justified. It should be determined whether it is in fact necessary to use human subjects at all. Risk can perhaps never be entirely eliminated, but it can often be reduced by careful attention to alternative procedures. A number of variables go into such judgments, including the nature and degree of risk, the condition of the particular population involved, and the nature and level of the anticipated benefits.
Selection of Subjects. Justice is relevant to the selection of subjects of research at two levels: the social and the individual. Individual justice in the selection of subjects would require that researchers exhibit fairness: thus, they should not offer potentially beneficial research only to some patients who are in their favor or select only "undesirable" persons for risky research.
Social justice requires that distinction be drawn between classes of subjects that ought, and ought not, to participate in any particular kind of research, based on the ability of members of that class to bear burdens and on the appropriateness of placing further burdens on already burdened persons.follow
ISBN 13: 9780300052206
Thus, it can be considered a matter of social justice that there is an order of preference in the selection of classes of subjects e. Injustice may appear in the selection of subjects, even if individual subjects are selected fairly by investigators and treated fairly in the course of research. Thus injustice arises from social, racial, sexual and cultural biases institutionalized in society. Thus, even if individual researchers are treating their research subjects fairly, and even if IRBs are taking care to assure that subjects are selected fairly within a particular institution, unjust social patterns may nevertheless appear in the overall distribution of the burdens and benefits of research.
Although individual institutions or investigators may not be able to resolve a problem that is pervasive in their social setting, they can consider distributive justice in selecting research subjects. Some populations, especially institutionalized ones, are already burdened in many ways by their infirmities and environments. When research is proposed that involves risks and does not include a therapeutic component, other less burdened classes of persons should be called upon first to accept these risks of research, except where the research is directly related to the specific conditions of the class involved.
Also, even though public funds for research may often flow in the same directions as public funds for health care, it seems unfair that populations dependent on public health care constitute a pool of preferred research subjects if more advantaged populations are likely to be the recipients of the benefits.
One special instance of injustice results from the involvement of vulnerable subjects. Certain groups, such as racial minorities, the economically disadvantaged, the very sick, and the institutionalized may continually be sought as research subjects, owing to their ready availability in settings where research is conducted. Given their dependent status and their frequently compromised capacity for free consent, they should be protected against the danger of being involved in research solely for administrative convenience, or because they are easy to manipulate as a result of their illness or socioeconomic condition.
The best known of these codes are the Nuremberg Code of , the Helsinki Declaration of revised in , and the Guidelines codified into Federal Regulations in issued by the U. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Codes for the conduct of social and behavioral research have also been adopted, the best known being that of the American Psychological Association, published in The fact that some forms of practice have elements other than immediate benefit to the individual receiving an intervention, however, should not confuse the general distinction between research and practice.
Even when a procedure applied in practice may benefit some other person, it remains an intervention designed to enhance the well-being of a particular individual or groups of individuals; thus, it is practice and need not be reviewed as research. Responsibility starts with providers being educated about the new medications and specialty drugs on the market, according to Alison Mitchell, MSN, and Catherine M.
Read the Belmont Report | tdotymognake.cf
For FNPs and other providers, the responsibility of prescriptive authority is more than just simply writing a prescription correctly. Providers must understand drug interactions and possible side effects. Studies show nearly one-third of adults in the United States takes five or more medications daily. The more medications a person takes, the greater the chance of adverse drug events, the U.
Department of Health and Human Services said. The World Health Organization suggests a multi-step approach to prescribing that may help providers better focus the intent for the treatment. The guidelines were established in and are still applicable today. For clinicians, many ethical challenges from the past decades are still present today. Some of them include:.