Difference between revisions of "Resource:569d9ce8-85a9-4494-8e9c-647cedaff2fd"

From The Embassy of Good Science
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Resource
 
{{Resource
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=The Future of Ethical Review in New Zealand
+
|Title=The Unfortunate Experiment
|Is About=This report describes the system of ethical review that was adopted in New Zealand based on the fi ndings and recommendations from the Cartwright Inquiry in 1988<ref>Mcmillan, John, and Lynne Bowyer. "An Unfortunate Experiment?: The Future of Ethical Review in New Zealand." ''Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics'' 23.3 (2014): 268-271.</ref>. This is a factual case.
+
|Is About=This is a historical case about Dr. Herbert Green's unethical experiment concerning the treatment given to women "with a premalignant cell condition in the neck of the womb, known as carcinoma in situ (CIS)". Major ethical issues include "disregarding therapeutic obligations" (or as others have called it "adopting an unorthodox approach to the management of CIS"), and lack of informed consent (p. 269).
 
<references />
 
<references />
|Important Because=It discusses the changes made to this system under recent governmental initiatives enacted by the National Party, and some of the implications of those changes<ref>Mcmillan, John, and Lynne Bowyer. "An Unfortunate Experiment?: The Future of Ethical Review in New Zealand." ''Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics'' 23.3 (2014): 268-271.</ref>
+
|Important Because=It discusses the responsibilities of researchers as clinician and a researcher. Furthermore, it provides a brief historical analysis of the development of research policies regarding ethical reviews in New Zealand.
 
<references />
 
<references />
|Important For=Researchers
+
|Important For=Researchers; Ethics committee members; Policy makers
 +
|Has Best Practice=Although adequeate checks and balances seem to have not been in place at the time when the experiment was being conducted, Dr. Green should have informed his patients about the unorthodox method he was using.
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Link
 
{{Link
Line 12: Line 13:
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Related To
 
{{Related To
|Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8
+
|Related To Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Tags
 
{{Tags
Line 18: Line 19:
 
|Has Timepoint=1966-1980; 1988
 
|Has Timepoint=1966-1980; 1988
 
|Has Location=New Zealand
 
|Has Location=New Zealand
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect
+
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Care
 
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety
 
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Patient safety
 
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
 
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 14:56, 4 August 2020

Cases

The Unfortunate Experiment

What is this about?

This is a historical case about Dr. Herbert Green's unethical experiment concerning the treatment given to women "with a premalignant cell condition in the neck of the womb, known as carcinoma in situ (CIS)". Major ethical issues include "disregarding therapeutic obligations" (or as others have called it "adopting an unorthodox approach to the management of CIS"), and lack of informed consent (p. 269).

Why is this important?

It discusses the responsibilities of researchers as clinician and a researcher. Furthermore, it provides a brief historical analysis of the development of research policies regarding ethical reviews in New Zealand.

For whom is this important?

What are the best practices?

Although adequeate checks and balances seem to have not been in place at the time when the experiment was being conducted, Dr. Green should have informed his patients about the unorthodox method he was using.

Other information

Virtues & Values
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6