Were There “Additional Foreseeable Risks” in the SUPPORT Study? Lessons Not Learned from the ARDSnet Clinical Trials

Hastings Center Report 45 (1):21-29 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX


SUPPORT, a study involving approximately 1,300 premature infants who were randomly assigned to treatment protocols that differed in whether they offered higher or lower levels of oxygen saturation, was purportedly an example of comparative effectiveness research performed in the intensive care unit. However, SUPPORT became highly controversial. One source of controversy involved the proper determination of “reasonably foreseeable risks.” Commentators debated whether randomization to contrasting restrictive strategies that are within existing standard‐of‐care treatments imposed additional “reasonably foreseeable risks” greater than what study participants would have received outside of the research. A second controversial issue had to do with disclosures in informed consent documents. This article explores these issues.We argue that randomization to contrasting restrictive interventions lying at the outer ends of “standard‐of‐care” practices differs in important ways from unrestricted “standard‐of‐care” practices available outside of a proposed study; that research involving such randomization might pose additional “reasonably foreseeable risks” from what occurs in “standard‐of‐care” practices; and that for trials whose study designs are similar to the SUPPORT study, respect for persons requires the disclosure of information about the nature of the experimental procedures and their risks.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,271

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

Quality Improvement Ethics: Lessons From the SUPPORT Study.Benjamin S. Wilfond - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (12):14-19.
Uncertainty and the ethics of clinical trials.Sven Ove Hansson - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2):149-167.
A clinical trials manual from the Duke Clinical Research Institute: lessons from a horse named Jim.Margaret B. Liu - 2010 - Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by Kate Davis & Margaret B. Liu.
What makes placebo-controlled trials unethical?Franklin G. Miller & Howard Brody - 2002 - American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):3 – 9.


Added to PP

20 (#733,390)

6 months
4 (#754,937)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?