International variation in ethics committee requirements: comparisons across five Westernised nations [Book Review]

BMC Medical Ethics 3 (1):1-8 (2002)
Abstract
Background Ethics committees typically apply the common principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice to research proposals but with variable weighting and interpretation. This paper reports a comparison of ethical requirements in an international cross-cultural study and discusses their implications. Discussion The study was run concurrently in New Zealand, UK, Israel, Canada and USA and involved testing hypotheses about believability of testimonies regarding alleged child sexual abuse. Ethics committee requirements to conduct this study ranged from nil in Israel to considerable amendments designed to minimise participant harm in New Zealand. Assessment of minimal risk is a complex and unreliable estimation further compounded by insufficient information on probabilities of particular individuals suffering harm. Estimating potential benefits/ risks ratio and protecting participants' autonomy similarly are not straightforward exercises. Summary Safeguarding moral/humane principles should be balanced with promotion of ethical research which does not impede research posing minimal risk to participants. In ensuring that ethical standards are met and research has scientific merit, ethics committees have obligations to participants (to meet their rights and protect them from harm); to society (to ensure good quality research is conducted); and to researchers (to treat their proposals with just consideration and respect). To facilitate meeting all these obligations, the preferable focus should be promotion of ethical research, rather than the prevention of unethical research, which inevitably results in the impediment of researchers from doing their work. How the ethical principles should be applied and balanced requires further consideration.
Keywords info:mesh/Israel  info:mesh/Behavioral Research  Behavioral Research   Canada   Child   Child Abuse, Sexual   Cross-Cultural Comparison   Ethical Review   Ethics Committees, Research   Great Britain   Human Experimentation   Humans   Informed Consent   Israel   New Zealand   Personal Autonomy   Research Design   Risk Assessment   United States  info:mesh/United States  info:mesh/Informed Consent  info:mesh/Great Britain  info:mesh/Ethical Review  info:mesh/Child  info:mesh/Research Design  info:mesh/Humans  info:mesh/Ethics Committees, Research  info:mesh/New Zealand  info:mesh/Personal Autonomy  info:mesh/Cross-Cultural Comparison  info:mesh/Child Abuse, Sexual  info:mesh/Risk Assessment  info:mesh/Canada  info:mesh/Human Experimentation
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,392
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-11-17

Total downloads

2 ( #354,724 of 1,102,926 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #297,281 of 1,102,926 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.