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?

Jon F. Merz, JD, PhD
RAND Santa Monica, Calif

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD
University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia

JAMA. 1995;274(15):1196.

	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 Consensus Statement on informed consent in emergency research¹ is a needed plea for direction and sensibility to enable researchers to pursue socially desirable research in emergency care. Nonetheless, the statement under-emphasizes the legitimate role prior expressions of treatment desires by competent patients should play in such research.

First, no distinction is drawn between patients who are in the care of physicians in a hospital and those not in the care of physicians at the time an emergency arises. The authors consider securing prospective consent from patients when they are admitted to the hospital, but dismiss it. They assert that patients may not consider their options carefully if there is only a remote chance of study entry, and thus they may not be protected adequately from research risks. The reasoning behind this conclusion is flawed and the result unacceptably paternalistic.

It is wrong to presume that . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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