Ethics and innovation in medicine

Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (5):295-296 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

How should one think about innovation in medicine and surgery? Increasingly, the answer to this question has involved reference to what might be called the regulatory ethics paradigm (REP). The regulatory ethics paradigm holds that deviations from standard care involve a degree or kind of experimentation that requires the application of a set of procedures designed to assure the protection of the rights and welfare of the subjects of research. In REP, innovative treatments are regarded as questionable until they are framed in a research protocol with formal mechanisms of informed consent. The protocol must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent. The regulatory ethics paradigm in effect imposes the condition that clinical innovations be conducted according to scientific research methodologies. It creates the presumption that without review by an IRB, innovation cannot be conducted in an ethically defensible fashion. The regulatory ethics paradigm also requires the preparation of investigational protocols according to sound evidentiary and methodological standards. In so doing, it creates a presumption that innovations that are not rigorously validated are ethically dubious. These assumptions have deep roots. The Belmont Report, for example, articulated the orienting intuition that “radically new procedures... should... be made the object of formal research at an early stage [emphasis added] in order to determine whether they are safe and effective”.1 The Belmont Report takes the view that formal research to establish safety and efficacy of new interventions is usually feasible at an early stage in the development of a novel intervention. It thus establishes a bias that innovative treatments be conducted and evaluated under a research protocol that has passed muster at an IRB review. Given the …

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,795

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Institutional Review Board: member handbook.Robert J. Amdur - 2021 - Burlington, Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Edited by Elizabeth A. Bankert.
Surgical innovation as sui generis surgical research.Mianna Lotz - 2013 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (6):447-459.
The Belmont Report and Innovative Clinical Research.John D. Lantos - 2020 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 63 (2):389-400.
The Ethics of Information-Gathering in Innovative Practice.Jake Earl & David Wendler - 2020 - Internal Medicine Journal 50 (12):1583-1587.
Translating Stem Cell Research: Challenges at the Research Frontier.David Magnus - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):267-276.
The Ethical Analysis of Risk.Charles Weijer - 2000 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (4):344-361.
When OPRR Comes Calling: Enforcing Federal Research Regulations.Charles R. Mccarthy - 1995 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (1):51-55.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-22

Downloads
53 (#413,130)

6 months
16 (#194,625)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

George Agich
Bowling Green State University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references