The experiences of ethics committee members: contradictions between individuals and committees

Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (6):489-494 (2008)

Abstract
The current system of ethical review for medical research in the United Kingdom is changing from the current system involving large committees of 7–18 members reviewing every individual application to a system involving pre-review by small sub-committees of National Research Ethics Officers , who have a remit to approve studies if they believe there are no material ethical issues imposed by the research. The reliability of this new system depends on the reliability of the NREAs and in particular the ability of small groups to effectively identify and appropriately assess the seriousness of all the material ethical issues that may be posed by an application. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that many individual research ethics committee members have had experience of believing that a study presents no material ethical concerns, then on reaching the committee and discussing the application they realise that the committee feels it does present significant ethical concerns. If this is the case then this casts doubt on the reliability of NREAs or small groups to effectively identify ethically problematic research and appropriately respond to this to protect research participants. In this paper we describe a small questionnaire based piece of research carried out to assess how common this and other relevant experiences are
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2007.022020
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,607
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

Should Research Ethics Committees Be Told How to Think?G. M. Sayers - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (1):39-42.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Research Exceptionalism.James Wilson & David Hunter - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (8):45-54.
Is There a Case for a Distinction Between Ethics and Policy?David Hunter - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):24-25.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Audit Committee Features and Earnings Management: Further Evidence From Singapore.J.-L. W. Mitchell Der Zahvann & Greg Tower - 2004 - International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 1 (s 2-3):233-258.
Education of Ethics Committee Members: Experiences From Croatia.A. Borovecki - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (3):138-142.
The Protection of Patients' Rights in Clinical Trials.Marek Czarkowski - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):131-138.
Ethics by Committee: The Moral Authority of Consensus.Jonathan D. Moreno - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (4):411-432.
The Role of Ethics Committees in Public Debate.Lonneke M. Poort - 2008 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):19-35.
The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author.David Shaw - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
Consensus, Contracts, and Committees.Jonathan D. Moreno - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):393-408.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-08-24

Total views
12 ( #579,111 of 2,325,337 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #334,542 of 2,325,337 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature