This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Frank H. Marsh JD, PhD
University of Colorado School of Medicine Denver

JAMA. 1986;256(14):1891.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The article entitled "Deferred Consent" by Abramson et al¹ is both interesting and provocative; however, the authors slide over two very important points that are of major concern.

The first of these two points touches on the distinction between experimental therapy and research and the standard of care the law assigns to both. The authors are quite right in stating that a physician may, under appropriate circumstances, consider and employ an experimental therapy that might benefit his patient in an otherwise hopeless situation. The obligations imposed here by law and by ethics as well are to be found within the constructs of a physician-patient relationship. This relationship is different in many respects from that of a researcher-subject relationship. The duties inherent therein shift as the concept of the relationship shifts. For example, the definition of research itself dismisses any immediate idea of a direct benefit to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Drummond Rennie, MD, Senior Contributing Editor; Sharon Iverson, Assistant Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?