Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller's “Assessing research risks systematically”
AUTOR(ES)
Weijer, C
FONTE
BMJ Group
RESUMO
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.
ACESSO AO ARTIGO
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2598154Documentos Relacionados
- Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test
- The spoon test: a simple bedside test for assessing sudomotor autonomic failure.
- Autonomic response of older women to the submaximal effort in the six-minute walk test: a cross-sectional study
- A Thrombin Generation Test: The Application in Haemophilia and Thrombocytopenia
- Reiter haemagglutination test: a screening test for syphilis.