The unique ethical challenges of conducting research in the rehabilitation medicine population

BMC Medical Ethics

Jeff Blackmer¹ 

[1] Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation University of Ottawa The Rehabilitation Centre 505 Smyth Road Ottawa, ON K1H 8M2

关键词: rehabilitation medicine;    research;    ethics;   

Others  :  1092187
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-4-2

 received in 2003-02-19, accepted in 2003-06-17,  发布年份 2003

【 摘 要 】

Background

The broad topic of research ethics is one which has been relatively well-investigated and discussed. Unique ethical issues have been identified for such populations as pediatrics, where the issues of consent and assent have received much attention, and obstetrics, with concerns such as the potential for research to cause harm to the fetus. However, little has been written about ethical concerns which are relatively unique to the population of patients seen by the practitioner of rehabilitation medicine.

Discussion

This paper reviews unique ethical concerns in conducting research in this population, including decision-making capacity, communication, the potential for subject overuse, the timing of recruitment, hope for a cure and therapeutic misconception and the nature of the health care provider-research subject relationship.

Summary

Researchers in the area of rehabilitation medicine should be aware of some of the unique ethical challenges posed by this patient population and should take steps to address any potential concerns in order to optimize subject safety and ensure that studies meet current ethical guidelines and standards.

【 授权许可】

   
2003 Blackmer; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Harrison C, Kenny NP, Sidarous M, Rowell M: Involving children in medical decisions. CMAJ 1997, 156:825-828.
• [2]Annas GJ: Protecting the liberty of pregnant patients. NEJM 1987, 316:1213-14.
• [3]Kolder VEB, Gallagher J, Parsons MT: Court-ordered obstetrical interventions. NEJM 1987, 316:1192-1196.
• [4]Lippman A: Prenatal diagnosis: Reproductive choice? Reproductive control? In The future of human reproduction. Edited by Overall C. Toronto, The Women's Press; 1989:182-194.
• [5]Burgess MM, Laberge CM, Knoppers BM: Ethics and genetics in medicine. CMAJ 1998, 158:1309-1313.
• [6]Etchells E, Sharpe G, Walsh P, Williams JR, Singer PA: Consent. CMAJ 1996, 155:177-180.
• [7]Roth EJ, Harvey RL: Rehabilitation of stroke syndromes. In Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2nd edition. Edited by Braddom RL. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Co; 2000:1118.
• [8]Filley CM, Heaton RK, Nelson LM, Burks JS, Franklin GM: A comparison of dementia in Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1989, 46:157-161.
• [9]Mortimer JA, Pirozzolo FJ, Hansch EC, Webster DD: Relationship of motor symptoms to intellectual deficits in Parkinson's disease. Neurology 1982, 32:133-137.
• [10]DeVivo MJ, Fine PR, Maetz HM, Stover SL: Prevalence of spinal cord injury: re-estimation employing life table techniques. Arch Neurol 1980, 37:707-8.
• [11]Wolf PA, Kannez WB, Venter J: Current status of risk factors for stroke. Neurol Clin 1983, 1:317-343.
• [12]Shapiro RT: Medications used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 1999, 10:437-446.