Law, ethics and research ethics committees
This paper examines the view of the operational management of the UK Research Ethics Committee (REC) system that RECs may not reject applications on purely legal grounds. Two arguments are offered for this view: the first rests on the contention that being lawful and being ethical are not the same t...
Saved in:
Published in | Medicine and law Vol. 21; no. 1; p. 57 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
2002
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get more information |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | This paper examines the view of the operational management of the UK Research Ethics Committee (REC) system that RECs may not reject applications on purely legal grounds. Two arguments are offered for this view: the first rests on the contention that being lawful and being ethical are not the same thing; the second is that RECs lack expertise and authority to base their decisions on legal considerations. However, whatever the philosophical standing of the first argument, it is contrary to published guidance, the basis of RECs' official authority, unethical, and politically imprudent to permit RECs not to consider conformity with the law to be at least a necessary condition for REC approval. In any event, RECs can obtain competent and authoritative advice on the law (though the Department of Health has been remiss in this regard), and they do not exceed their authority by applying the law, because this is within their ethical remit. When current guidance to RECs about advising researchers on whether or not breaches of confidence are permissible in the public interest is linked to the view of the REC management that the role of RECs is to facilitate research (albeit ethical research), this raises serious doubts about the integrity of the system of ethical review currently in place, which is illustrated by a recent "agreement" of the Chairmen of the MRECs not to consider the Data Protection Act 1998 in their ethical review. |
---|---|
AbstractList | This paper examines the view of the operational management of the UK Research Ethics Committee (REC) system that RECs may not reject applications on purely legal grounds. Two arguments are offered for this view: the first rests on the contention that being lawful and being ethical are not the same thing; the second is that RECs lack expertise and authority to base their decisions on legal considerations. However, whatever the philosophical standing of the first argument, it is contrary to published guidance, the basis of RECs' official authority, unethical, and politically imprudent to permit RECs not to consider conformity with the law to be at least a necessary condition for REC approval. In any event, RECs can obtain competent and authoritative advice on the law (though the Department of Health has been remiss in this regard), and they do not exceed their authority by applying the law, because this is within their ethical remit. When current guidance to RECs about advising researchers on whether or not breaches of confidence are permissible in the public interest is linked to the view of the REC management that the role of RECs is to facilitate research (albeit ethical research), this raises serious doubts about the integrity of the system of ethical review currently in place, which is illustrated by a recent "agreement" of the Chairmen of the MRECs not to consider the Data Protection Act 1998 in their ethical review. |
Author | Beyleveld, Deryck |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Deryck surname: Beyleveld fullname: Beyleveld, Deryck organization: Sheffield Institute of Biotechnological Law and Ethics, University of Sheffield, UK |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12017445$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNo1jkuLwjAURrNw8P0XpGuxkNybNmYpMi8ozEbXcpPcYMXW0lSG-fcz4Lj64CzO-WZi1N5aHompNIC5QosTMUvpIiWYEs1YTBRIZbQupmJd0fcm4-Fc-5RRG7KeE1Pvz0_mb01TDwNzWoiXSNfEy_-di-Pb62H_kVdf75_7XZV3CmDIqQTrQmEiRm9sKAtGrYFQW3DEBKjiX9oEG4wOVuroEDFo2MZCeW8dzMXq4e3uruFw6vq6of7n9DwNvwFZPW8 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM |
DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed |
DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Law |
ExternalDocumentID | 12017445 |
Genre | Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | --- 29M 36B 53G 5RE 6DY AAWTL ABACO ABOCM ADUOI AFXCU AGQRV AHEHV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS BEGCX BHRNT CGR CUY CVF EBD EBS ECM EIF EJD EMB EMOBN F5P GCT HCSNT HHYDC HISYW HOCAJ NPM RHO RWL RXW SDH SV3 TAA TAC TAE TWJ TWL W2G X6Y ZXP |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-p122t-a629bd57f3fc79d65e3442a3492baea231f7447d9d74d904fb333d428f51cc9b2 |
ISSN | 0723-1393 |
IngestDate | Sat Sep 28 07:50:23 EDT 2024 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Keywords | Legal Approach Biomedical and Behavioral Research |
Language | English |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-p122t-a629bd57f3fc79d65e3442a3492baea231f7447d9d74d904fb333d428f51cc9b2 |
PMID | 12017445 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmed_primary_12017445 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2002-00-00 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2002-01-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – year: 2002 text: 2002-00-00 |
PublicationDecade | 2000 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
PublicationTitle | Medicine and law |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Med Law |
PublicationYear | 2002 |
SSID | ssj0027637 |
Score | 1.5693864 |
Snippet | This paper examines the view of the operational management of the UK Research Ethics Committee (REC) system that RECs may not reject applications on purely... |
SourceID | pubmed |
SourceType | Index Database |
StartPage | 57 |
SubjectTerms | Confidentiality - legislation & jurisprudence Ethics Committees, Research - legislation & jurisprudence Guidelines as Topic Human Experimentation - legislation & jurisprudence Humans United Kingdom |
Title | Law, ethics and research ethics committees |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12017445 |
Volume | 21 |
hasFullText | |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1LTwMhECZWL16M77fZgycjpgssLEc1msaYntqkt2ZZIDGptTF7qb_e4eU29RH1QjbA7sI3ZBiG4QOhc0m5hmmjxqLQBYYRUmG3O4XrumuJIYyXykdb9HlvyB5GxailF_CnSxp1Vb99ea7kP1KFPJCrOyX7B8l-fBQy4BnkCylIGNJfyfix8hszxsesh0jxGEiX8uCvz09NY2KkYLq6KW6o-1cmrRv7xswnLogohAKb13lkzE9eAbLgFQjKQxCKwbqji5qO5J8kGtRW4IheQGz27CHLwTwQLPA9_ly6RFqdijqoI0qnePrOiZLWwTxQmaYmOuLWWH_JuPeT_GATbUTrPLsOUG-hFTPdRh2AeQddQHqZBVgzwC1LUKe8FupdNLy_G9z2cLxoAs9yQhpccSKVLoSlthZS88JQxkjliBtVZSowgS00TmipBdOyy6yilGpYuNkir2upyB5anb5MzQHKwDzTwioFVnWXKeroBAlULaWyuTC8PET7oYPjWWATGaeuH31bcozWWxGfoDULw9ecgi3UqDOP7DulNwfZ |
link.rule.ids | 786 |
linkProvider | National Library of Medicine |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Law%2C+ethics+and+research+ethics+committees&rft.jtitle=Medicine+and+law&rft.au=Beyleveld%2C+Deryck&rft.date=2002-01-01&rft.issn=0723-1393&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=57&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F12017445&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F12017445&rft.externalDocID=12017445 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0723-1393&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0723-1393&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0723-1393&client=summon |