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?

Charles L. Sprung, MD; Roland M. H. Schein, MD
Veterans Administration Medical Center University of Miami School of Medicine

JAMA. 1986;256(14):1891-1892.

	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.—

Abramson et al¹ are to be congratulated for merging the legal doctrines of informed consent with the medical realities of research in the critically ill patient. They have thereby formulated a practical solution to a difficult problem. The institutional review boards (IRBs) of the various hospitals in the study should also be commended for their acceptance of this sorely needed concept.

The authors have noted federal regulations that foster research and at the same time protect individuals. Unfortunately, despite these guidelines many IRBs and attorneys are reluctant to allow research to occur without the actual consent of the patient himself. Some people view research as a risk rather than as a benefit for subjects, especially if the subject has a 50% chance of receiving a placebo. Often forgotten is the Hawthorne effect-the fact that one may benefit solely by being part of a research project.² . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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