Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
eMJA: Researchers as guinea pigs Researchers as guinea pigs Martin B Van Der Weyden MJA 2003 178 (2): 52-53 Self-experimentation in Australia is alive and well Many advances in modern medicine owe a great deal to human experimentation. Indeed, much of biomedical research is irrelevant to mainstream medicine unless its clinical utility is established through human experimentation, for, as observed by the English essayist Alexander Pope, "the proper study of mankind is man."1 Today the circumstances and conduct of human experimentation are painstakingly policed by ethics committees, but even such strict surveillance cannot guarantee safety: "because experiments with humans are voyages into the unknown, an element of risk is always involved; the potential for death, injury, or illness can be reduced, but it can not be eliminated."2 It is this very uncertainty that presents a dilemma for researchers. Sir George Pickering, past Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, delineated this quandary: "The experimenter has one golden rule to guide him . . . Is he prepared to submit himself to the procedure? If he is, and if the experiment is actually carried out on him, then it is probably justifiable. If he is not, then [it] should not be done."2 In short, the researcher should be the guinea pig. Risk-laden stories of researchers being guinea pigs abound in medicine's heritage. They include that of John Hunter, the 18th-century English anatomist and surgeon, who allegedly inoculated himself with venereal pus. Full Article: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_02_200103/vanderweyden_201003.html |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||