View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Can and Should the Research-Therapy Distinction Be Maintained? Reflections in the Light of Innovative Last-Resort Treatment

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Can and Should the Research-Therapy Distinction Be Maintained? Reflections in the Light of Innovative Last-Resort Treatment
Language: English
Authors: Helgesson, Gert
Source: Research Ethics. Apr 2019 15(2).
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Research, Therapy, Ethics, Safety, Patients, Health Services, Policy, Innovation
DOI: 10.1177/1747016119835461
ISSN: 1747-0161
Abstract: It has been debated for quite some time among bioethicists and others whether or not the distinction between therapy and research in healthcare can and should be maintained. This paper tries to clarify what the disagreement is about, and argues that the distinction can be maintained in most, if not all, situations. However, even if it can be maintained, it does not necessarily follow that it should. It is argued here that there are good reasons to maintain the distinction both for the sake of protecting research interests and the sake of patient safety. In addition, recognizing the distinction provides a barrier against unreasonable prioritization between patients. However, there may be situations, such as innovative last-resort treatment, in which regulatory requirements from both therapy and research should be considered.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1211216
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
Abstract:It has been debated for quite some time among bioethicists and others whether or not the distinction between therapy and research in healthcare can and should be maintained. This paper tries to clarify what the disagreement is about, and argues that the distinction can be maintained in most, if not all, situations. However, even if it can be maintained, it does not necessarily follow that it should. It is argued here that there are good reasons to maintain the distinction both for the sake of protecting research interests and the sake of patient safety. In addition, recognizing the distinction provides a barrier against unreasonable prioritization between patients. However, there may be situations, such as innovative last-resort treatment, in which regulatory requirements from both therapy and research should be considered.
ISSN:1747-0161
DOI:10.1177/1747016119835461