The OHRP and SUPPORT — Another View
A group of physicians, bioethicists, and scholars in allied fields agrees with the Office for Human Research Protections about the informed-consent documents in SUPPORT. To the Editor: We are a group of physicians, bioethicists, and scholars in allied fields who agree with the Office for Human Resea...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The New England journal of medicine 2013-07, Vol.369 (2), p.e3-e3 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A group of physicians, bioethicists, and scholars in allied fields agrees with the Office for Human Research Protections about the informed-consent documents in SUPPORT.
To the Editor:
We are a group of physicians, bioethicists, and scholars in allied fields who agree with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) that the informed-consent documents that were used in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial (SUPPORT) were seriously inadequate.
1
The aims of the SUPPORT study were commendable, and the study addressed important clinical issues. Nevertheless, however complex and important a study may be, the consent process must be clear enough to enable informed decision making.
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (45CFR46.116) includes the following requirements for informed consent: “A statement that the study . . . |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0028-4793 1533-4406 |
DOI: | 10.1056/NEJMc1308015 |