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?

David J. Rothman, PhD
Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons New York, NY

JAMA. 1997;277(9):709.

	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.

—For all its strengths, the reappraisal of the Nuremburg Code by Dr Katz¹ slights the past when he insists that "occasional voices to the contrary, little thought had been given to patient's consent." He correctly notes the absence of formal codes, but prominent physicians gave ample and sustained thought to the ethics of human experimentation, including consent. Indeed, far more consensus existed on principles than Katz suggests.

In 1907, for example, William Osler, in "The Evolution of the Idea of Experiment,"² required investigators to obtain the consent of the subject: "For man absolute safety and full consent are the conditions which make such tests allowable. We have no right to use patients entrusted to our care for the purpose of experimentation unless direct benefit to the individual is likely to follow. Once this limit is transgressed, the sacred cord which binds physician and patient snaps instantly." So too, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor.

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