A comparison of the new Federal Guidelines regulating supervised injection site research in Canada and the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human Subjects
The Federal Government of Canada has recently published guidelines for researchers interested in studying supervised injection sites (SIS) in Canada. These guidelines articulate the criteria that must be satisfied before the Minister of Health will authorise any such research. The purpose of this pa...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The International journal of drug policy 2004-02, Vol.15 (1), p.66-73 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 73 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 66 |
container_title | The International journal of drug policy |
container_volume | 15 |
creator | Christie, Timothy Wood, Evan Schechter, Martin T O’Shaughnessy, Michael V |
description | The Federal Government of Canada has recently published guidelines for researchers interested in studying supervised injection sites (SIS) in Canada. These guidelines articulate the criteria that must be satisfied before the Minister of Health will authorise any such research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the new Federal Guidelines and compare them to the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS). The application of the TCPS ethical principles underscores the ethical probity of SIS research and demonstrates that SIS research qualifies as “minimal risk.” The new Federal Guidelines do not fully appreciate the innocuous nature of SIS research. The level of scrutiny associated with the new guidelines is disproportionate to the level of risk involved in SIS research and these expectations run the risk of limiting the amount of research that can occur. The uncritical acceptance of these guidelines could have the consequence of continuing to deny injection drug users (IDU) the benefits of this promising research on the grounds that there is an inadequate evidence base to establish SIS as the “standard of care.” |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0955-3959(03)00130-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_57138456</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0955395903001300</els_id><sourcerecordid>57138456</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c253t-2ecefdf11553b67fc3678ca24261f9d50b9aa1bbcd4602afdee36dd1831560683</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1u1DAUha0KpA4Dj4DkFYJFwI5jJ1mhKuqfVAnUadeWY990XDn2YDuD-nY8Gp4ZYMvqXl195xxdHYTeU_KZEiq-bEjPecV63n8k7BMhlJGKnKEV7VpWNS3vXqHVP-QcvUnpmRDS0Iau0K8LrMO8U9Gm4HGYcN4C9vATX4GBqBy-XqwBZz0kHOFpcSpb_4TTsoO4twkMtv4ZdLZFnWyGAiVQUW_LHQ_KK6Ow8uZo-xBtNYTFa-vw9-CsfsGbrDLM4DMu-su8tbpEDsGbRWc8hYjv_9rd-n1w-0P2zTIrjzfLeMhNb9HrSbkE7_7MNXq8unwYbqq7b9e3w8VdpWvOclWDhslMlHLORtFOmom206puakGn3nAy9krRcdSmEaRWkwFgwhjaMcoFER1bow8n310MPxZIWc42aXBOeQhLkrylrGu4KCA_gTqGlCJMchftrOKLpEQe-pLHvuShDEmYPPZVljX6etJB-WJvIcqkLXgNxsbyqDTB_sfhN742oZQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>57138456</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of the new Federal Guidelines regulating supervised injection site research in Canada and the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human Subjects</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Christie, Timothy ; Wood, Evan ; Schechter, Martin T ; O’Shaughnessy, Michael V</creator><creatorcontrib>Christie, Timothy ; Wood, Evan ; Schechter, Martin T ; O’Shaughnessy, Michael V</creatorcontrib><description>The Federal Government of Canada has recently published guidelines for researchers interested in studying supervised injection sites (SIS) in Canada. These guidelines articulate the criteria that must be satisfied before the Minister of Health will authorise any such research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the new Federal Guidelines and compare them to the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS). The application of the TCPS ethical principles underscores the ethical probity of SIS research and demonstrates that SIS research qualifies as “minimal risk.” The new Federal Guidelines do not fully appreciate the innocuous nature of SIS research. The level of scrutiny associated with the new guidelines is disproportionate to the level of risk involved in SIS research and these expectations run the risk of limiting the amount of research that can occur. The uncritical acceptance of these guidelines could have the consequence of continuing to deny injection drug users (IDU) the benefits of this promising research on the grounds that there is an inadequate evidence base to establish SIS as the “standard of care.”</description><identifier>ISSN: 0955-3959</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-4758</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0955-3959(03)00130-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Canada ; Ethical aspects ; Evidence based medicine ; Guidelines ; HIV ; Illicity drug overdose deaths ; Injection drug use ; Intravenous drug addicts ; Risk management ; Safe injection sites ; Supervision</subject><ispartof>The International journal of drug policy, 2004-02, Vol.15 (1), p.66-73</ispartof><rights>2003 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c253t-2ecefdf11553b67fc3678ca24261f9d50b9aa1bbcd4602afdee36dd1831560683</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c253t-2ecefdf11553b67fc3678ca24261f9d50b9aa1bbcd4602afdee36dd1831560683</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395903001300$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,30977,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Christie, Timothy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Evan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schechter, Martin T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Shaughnessy, Michael V</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of the new Federal Guidelines regulating supervised injection site research in Canada and the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human Subjects</title><title>The International journal of drug policy</title><description>The Federal Government of Canada has recently published guidelines for researchers interested in studying supervised injection sites (SIS) in Canada. These guidelines articulate the criteria that must be satisfied before the Minister of Health will authorise any such research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the new Federal Guidelines and compare them to the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS). The application of the TCPS ethical principles underscores the ethical probity of SIS research and demonstrates that SIS research qualifies as “minimal risk.” The new Federal Guidelines do not fully appreciate the innocuous nature of SIS research. The level of scrutiny associated with the new guidelines is disproportionate to the level of risk involved in SIS research and these expectations run the risk of limiting the amount of research that can occur. The uncritical acceptance of these guidelines could have the consequence of continuing to deny injection drug users (IDU) the benefits of this promising research on the grounds that there is an inadequate evidence base to establish SIS as the “standard of care.”</description><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Ethical aspects</subject><subject>Evidence based medicine</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>HIV</subject><subject>Illicity drug overdose deaths</subject><subject>Injection drug use</subject><subject>Intravenous drug addicts</subject><subject>Risk management</subject><subject>Safe injection sites</subject><subject>Supervision</subject><issn>0955-3959</issn><issn>1873-4758</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1u1DAUha0KpA4Dj4DkFYJFwI5jJ1mhKuqfVAnUadeWY990XDn2YDuD-nY8Gp4ZYMvqXl195xxdHYTeU_KZEiq-bEjPecV63n8k7BMhlJGKnKEV7VpWNS3vXqHVP-QcvUnpmRDS0Iau0K8LrMO8U9Gm4HGYcN4C9vATX4GBqBy-XqwBZz0kHOFpcSpb_4TTsoO4twkMtv4ZdLZFnWyGAiVQUW_LHQ_KK6Ow8uZo-xBtNYTFa-vw9-CsfsGbrDLM4DMu-su8tbpEDsGbRWc8hYjv_9rd-n1w-0P2zTIrjzfLeMhNb9HrSbkE7_7MNXq8unwYbqq7b9e3w8VdpWvOclWDhslMlHLORtFOmom206puakGn3nAy9krRcdSmEaRWkwFgwhjaMcoFER1bow8n310MPxZIWc42aXBOeQhLkrylrGu4KCA_gTqGlCJMchftrOKLpEQe-pLHvuShDEmYPPZVljX6etJB-WJvIcqkLXgNxsbyqDTB_sfhN742oZQ</recordid><startdate>20040201</startdate><enddate>20040201</enddate><creator>Christie, Timothy</creator><creator>Wood, Evan</creator><creator>Schechter, Martin T</creator><creator>O’Shaughnessy, Michael V</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040201</creationdate><title>A comparison of the new Federal Guidelines regulating supervised injection site research in Canada and the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human Subjects</title><author>Christie, Timothy ; Wood, Evan ; Schechter, Martin T ; O’Shaughnessy, Michael V</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c253t-2ecefdf11553b67fc3678ca24261f9d50b9aa1bbcd4602afdee36dd1831560683</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Ethical aspects</topic><topic>Evidence based medicine</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>HIV</topic><topic>Illicity drug overdose deaths</topic><topic>Injection drug use</topic><topic>Intravenous drug addicts</topic><topic>Risk management</topic><topic>Safe injection sites</topic><topic>Supervision</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Christie, Timothy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Evan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schechter, Martin T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Shaughnessy, Michael V</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>The International journal of drug policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Christie, Timothy</au><au>Wood, Evan</au><au>Schechter, Martin T</au><au>O’Shaughnessy, Michael V</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of the new Federal Guidelines regulating supervised injection site research in Canada and the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human Subjects</atitle><jtitle>The International journal of drug policy</jtitle><date>2004-02-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>66</spage><epage>73</epage><pages>66-73</pages><issn>0955-3959</issn><eissn>1873-4758</eissn><abstract>The Federal Government of Canada has recently published guidelines for researchers interested in studying supervised injection sites (SIS) in Canada. These guidelines articulate the criteria that must be satisfied before the Minister of Health will authorise any such research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the new Federal Guidelines and compare them to the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS). The application of the TCPS ethical principles underscores the ethical probity of SIS research and demonstrates that SIS research qualifies as “minimal risk.” The new Federal Guidelines do not fully appreciate the innocuous nature of SIS research. The level of scrutiny associated with the new guidelines is disproportionate to the level of risk involved in SIS research and these expectations run the risk of limiting the amount of research that can occur. The uncritical acceptance of these guidelines could have the consequence of continuing to deny injection drug users (IDU) the benefits of this promising research on the grounds that there is an inadequate evidence base to establish SIS as the “standard of care.”</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/S0955-3959(03)00130-0</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0955-3959 |
ispartof | The International journal of drug policy, 2004-02, Vol.15 (1), p.66-73 |
issn | 0955-3959 1873-4758 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_57138456 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Canada Ethical aspects Evidence based medicine Guidelines HIV Illicity drug overdose deaths Injection drug use Intravenous drug addicts Risk management Safe injection sites Supervision |
title | A comparison of the new Federal Guidelines regulating supervised injection site research in Canada and the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Human Subjects |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T00%3A50%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20the%20new%20Federal%20Guidelines%20regulating%20supervised%20injection%20site%20research%20in%20Canada%20and%20the%20Tri-Council%20Policy%20Statement%20on%20Ethical%20Conduct%20for%20Research%20Involving%20Human%20Subjects&rft.jtitle=The%20International%20journal%20of%20drug%20policy&rft.au=Christie,%20Timothy&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=66&rft.epage=73&rft.pages=66-73&rft.issn=0955-3959&rft.eissn=1873-4758&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0955-3959(03)00130-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E57138456%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=57138456&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0955395903001300&rfr_iscdi=true |