Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller's "Assessing research risks systematically"
Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (8):487-490 (2007)
Earlier in the pages of this journal (p 481), Wendler and Miller offered the "net risks test" as an alternative approach to the ethical analysis of benefits and harms in research. They have been vocal critics of the dominant view of benefit-harm analysis in research ethics, which encompasses core concepts of duty of care, clinical equipoise and component analysis. They had been challenged to come up with a viable alternative to component analysis which meets five criteria. The alternative must (1) protect research subjects; (2) allow clinical research to proceed; (3) explain how physicians may offer trial enrolment to their patients; (4) address the challenges posed by research containing a mixture of interventions and (5) define ethical standards according to which the risks and potential benefits of research may be consistently evaluated. This response argues that the net risks test meets none of these criteria and concludes that it is not a viable alternative to component analysis
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Assessing Research Risks Systematically: The Net Risks Test.D. Wendler & F. G. Miller - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (8):481-486.
When Are Research Risks Reasonable in Relation to Anticipated Benefits?Charles Weijer & Paul B. Miller - unknown
A New Justification for Pediatric Research Without the Potential for Clinical Benefit.David Wendler - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics 12 (1):23 - 31.
Which Benefits of Research Participation Count as 'Direct'?Alexander Friedman, Emily Robbins & David Wendler - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (2):60-67.
The Ethical Analysis of Risks and Potential Benefits in Human Subjects Research: History, Theory, and Implications for U.S. Regulation.Charles Weijer - unknown
Lessons From Everyday Lives: A Moral Justification for Acute Care Research.Andrew D. McRae & Charles Weijer - unknown
Protecting Subjects Who Cannot Give Consent: Toward a Better Standard for "Minimal" Risks.David Wendler - 2005 - Hastings Center Report 35 (5):37-43.
Does It Matter Whether Investigators Intend to Benefit Research Subjects?David Wendler & Emily Abdoler - 2011 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):353-370.
Equipoise and the Duty of Care in Clinical Research: A Philosophical Response to Our Critics.Paul B. Miller & Charles Weijer - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (2):117 – 133.
Responsible Conduct in Nanomedicine Research: Environmental Concerns Beyond the Common Rule.David B. Resnik - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (4):848-855.
Understanding Risks and Benefits in Research on Reproductive Genetic Technologies.Janet Malek - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):339 – 358.
Added to index2010-09-08
Total downloads16 ( #299,340 of 2,171,877 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,614 of 2,171,877 )
How can I increase my downloads?