Difference between revisions of "Resource:569d9ce8-85a9-4494-8e9c-647cedaff2fd"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=The Unfortunate Experiment |
| − | |Is About=This | + | |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 | + | |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 | ||
|Has Link=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/an-unfortunate-experiment/AA790F92D98EF01CF3D4504F43465BFD | |Has Link=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/an-unfortunate-experiment/AA790F92D98EF01CF3D4504F43465BFD | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647;Theme:E5629f68-81f6-490d-84d6-fd1e63b8dbc7 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |||
|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 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 18:21, 25 October 2020
ResourcesCases
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.
