Latest revision as of 16:03, 19 August 2021

Resources

Cases

The Olivieri Debacle: Where Were the Heroes of Bioethics?

What is this about?

This is a factual case about a blood researcher who is pressured by a pharmaceutical company into not sharing any details of a clinical trial which was terminated after the drug under investigation was suggested to be ineffective and maybe even harmful for the patients. The researcher received no support from the institution she was working for. The institution was later shown to have a conflict of interest. The article especially emphasizes the lack of action by the bioethical community in this case.

Why is this important?

Publication of clinical trial results is important, especially if the drug under investigation is potentially harmful to the patients. If the pharmaceutical company tries to force the researcher to do otherwise, the institution should intervene and try to support its employee, even if this means that the institution receives no funding from the company. Similarly, the local bioethical community should offer support as well. The example at hand shows the potential consequences if this is not the case: the integrity of the research may be endangered, along with the health of both the patients and researchers.

For whom is this important?

ResearchersResearch Ethics CommitteesUniversitiesAcademic staffAcademic institutionsClinical researchersIndustry

Other information

When

1995

Where

Canada

Virtues & Values

Good Practices & Misconduct

Research Area

Clinical Medicine

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Resource
 |Resource Type=Cases
-|Title=The Olivieri debacle: where were the heroes of bioethics?
+|Title=The Olivieri Debacle: Where Were the Heroes of Bioethics?
-|Is About=All Canadian bioethicists need to reflect on the meaning and value of their work, to see more clearly how the ethics of bioethics is being undermined from within. In the case involving Dr Olivieri, the Hospital for Sick Children, the University of Toronto, and Apotex Inc, there were countless opportunities for bioethical heroism. And yet, no bioethics heroes emerged from this case. Much has been written about the hospital’s and the university’s failures in this case. But what about the deafening silence from the Canadian bioethics community? Given the duty of bioethicists to ‘‘speak truth to power’’, this silence is troubling. To date, nothing has been written about the silence<ref>https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/30/1/44.full.pdf</ref>.
+|Is About=This is a factual case about a blood researcher who is pressured by a pharmaceutical company into not sharing any details of a clinical trial which was terminated after the drug under investigation was suggested to be ineffective and maybe even harmful for the patients. The researcher received no support from the institution she was working for. The institution was later shown to have a conflict of interest. The article especially emphasizes the lack of action by the bioethical community in this case.
-|Important Because=This article is intended as a partial remedy. As well, the article pays tribute to heretofore unsung heroes among Dr Olivieri’s research colleagues<ref>https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/30/1/44.full.pdf</ref>.
+<references />
-|Important For=researchers
+|Important Because=Publication of clinical trial results is important, especially if the drug under investigation is potentially harmful to the patients. If the pharmaceutical company tries to force the researcher to do otherwise, the institution should intervene and try to support its employee, even if this means that the institution receives no funding from the company. Similarly, the local bioethical community should offer support as well. The example at hand shows the potential consequences if this is not the case: the integrity of the research may be endangered, along with the health of both the patients and researchers. <br />
+<references />
+|Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Universities; Academic staff; Academic institutions; Clinical researchers; Industry
 }}
 {{Link
 |Has Link=https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/1/44
 }}
-{{Related To}}
+{{Related To
+|Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108;Theme:6d71bd59-c3bc-4cd5-9c9f-1ab4e53fc320;Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a;Theme:0d054575-ca21-4209-b7c5-6120fc0ed647
+}}
 {{Tags
+|Has Timepoint=1995
 |Has Location=Canada
-|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty
+|Has Virtue And Value=Respect; Honesty; Transparency; Compassion; Collegiality; Safety
 |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Informed consent; Conflict of interest; Patient safety
 |Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine
 }}

Difference between revisions of "Resource:F5e8362e-3dd6-4b95-a148-e0ccdb1cd4f3"