Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research?

Abstract

Patients participating in the shared benefits of publicly funded health care enjoy the benefits of treatments tested on previous patients. Future patients similarly depend on treatments tested on present patients. Since properly designed research assumes that the treatments being studied are—so far as is known at the outset—equivalent in therapeutic value, no one is clinically disadvantaged merely by taking part in research, provided the research involves administering active treatments to all participants. This paper argues that, because no other practical or moral considerations count decisively against so doing, we could and should oblige patients to agree to receive indicated treatment within the terms of any concurrent research protocols. This ensures their treatment will benefit not only themselves but also future patients through contributing to new knowledge. By analogy with the paying of income tax, patients should not be allowed to “veto” their social responsibility to take part in clinical research.

Biological and Clinical Aspects of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Past, Present and Future Treatment Strategies

“…Patient with MPM need to receive all the necessary information about their disease, so that they can decide which treatment on a clinical-evidence basis, and hopefully see the benefits of participating in randomized and controlled trials [27,28] .…”

Clinical and research ethics as moral strangers

“…Evans endorses a civil obligation for citizens to be entered "automatically" in clinical research protocols, whereas Harris prefers to call it a moral imperative that holds provided research is scientifically sound, of cognitive value, and only minimally risky or inconvenient, at the same time admitting that for profit research does not command such a moral imperative (Evans 2004;Harris 2005). This point has not been clearly taken by the Declaration of Helsinki when stating that "considerations related to the well-being of the human subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society" 2 .…”

Pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: weak evidence and no randomised trials☆

“…If a group of patients have an equal likelihood of harm as benefit, it seems to be as reasonable to allocate these patients by randomisation. The ethics of this have been very carefully explored [7] and we know that in cancer trials patients allocated to the 'new intervention' group are disadvantaged as often as they benefit [8].…”