Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T05:07:01.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhetoric and Research Ethics: An Answer to Annas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Albert R. Jonsen  and
Michael Yesley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the outset of his “Report on the National Commission,” Professor Annas quotes a satire on federal commissions. He then hastens to add that the quoted passage is an unfair and untrue characterization of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects. This could be said of Annas' entire article. His central theme — that the Commission was biased in favor of research — is supported by poor evidence, and contrary evidence is neglected. For an accurate description of the Commission and its work, readers must turn elsewhere. We would suggest starting with the Commission's own reports, which include detailed explanations of the bases for its recommendations as well as the data that were considered by the Commission in arriving at the recommendations.

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 8 , Issue 6 , December 1980 , pp. 8 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

42 U.S.C. §289–3(a), (b).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. §46.101 et seq.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. §46. 106–46.Google Scholar
P.L. 93–348, Title II §§201–205, July 12, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [hereinafter cited as National Commission), the Belmont Report (DHEW Pub. No. (OS) 78–0012, Washington, D.C.) (1978).Google Scholar
Holden, C., FDA Tells Senators of Doctors Who Fake Data in Clinical Drug Trials, Science 206(4417): 432–33 (October 26, 1979).Google ScholarPubMed
Cardon, P. et al., Injuries to Research Subjects, New England Journal of Medicine 295(12): 650–54 (September 16, 1976).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Meeting IV Minutes, pp. 2–3 (September 15–16, 1980).Google Scholar
Rosenberg, K., Human Experimentation: Adding Insult to Injury, Health/PAC Bulletin, p. 2 (1979).Google Scholar
National Commission, supra note 5, Report and Recommendations on Institutional Review Boards (DHEW Pub. No. (OS) 78–008, Washington, D.C.) (1978).Google Scholar
Appendix (bound separately) to Report and Recommendations on Institutional Review Boards, supra note 10; Barber, B. Lally, J.J. Makarushka, J.L. Sullivan, D., Research on Human Subjects: Problems of Social Control in Medical Experimentation (Russell Sage Foundation, New York) (1973).Google Scholar
Annas, G.J. Glantz, L.H. Katz, B.F., Informed Consent to Human Experimentation: The Subject's Dilemma (Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.,) (1977) [hereinafter cited as Annas, Informed Consent].Google Scholar
National Commission, supra note 5, Report and Recommendations: Psychosurgery (DHEW, Washington, D.C.) (1977) at 68.Google Scholar
National Commission, supra note 5, Report and Recommendations: Research Involving Children (DHEW, Washington, D.C.) (1977) at 7–17.Google Scholar
Annas, Informed Consent, supra note 12, at 182–83.Google Scholar
National Commission, supra note 5, Report and Recommendations: Research Involving Prisoners (DHEW, Washington, D.C.) (1976) at 14–21; Annas, Informed Consent, supra note 12, at 133–34.Google Scholar
43 Fed. Reg. 53652–56 (November 16, 1978).Google Scholar
National Commission, supra note 5, Report and Recommendations: Research Involving Those Institutionalized as Mentally Infirm (DHEW, Washington, D.C.) (1978) at 1–22; Annas, Informed Consent, supra note 12, at 182–83.Google Scholar
40 Fed. Reg. 33526 (August 8, 1975).Google Scholar
Annas, Informed Consent, supra note 12, at 211.Google Scholar