Author:
Moore Andrew,Donnelly Andrew
Abstract
What should authorities establish as the job of ethics committees and review boards? Two answers are: (1) review of proposals for consistency with the duly established and applicable code and (2) review of proposals for ethical acceptability. The present paper argues that these two jobs come apart in principle and in practice. On grounds of practicality, publicity and separation of powers, it argues that the relevant authorities do better to establish code-consistency review and not ethics-consistency review. It also rebuts bad code and independence arguments for the opposite view. It then argues that authorities at present variously specify both code-consistency and ethics-consistency jobs, but most are also unclear on this issue. The paper then argues that they should reform the job of review boards and ethics committees, by clearly establishing code-consistency review and disestablishing ethics-consistency review, and through related reform of the basic orientation, focus, name, and expertise profile of these bodies and their actions.
Subject
Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health(social science)
Reference24 articles.
1. Wade W , Forsyth C . Administrative law. 11th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
2. The case for evidence-based rulemaking in human subjects research;Sachs;Am J Bioeth,2010
3. Ministry of Health. Operational standard for ethics committees. Wellington, 2002.
4. Law, Ethics and Epidemiology: The Case of the Cervical Screening Audit;Davidson;NZ Bioeth J,2001
5. Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献