Entire Transcript in Adobe Acrobat Format - National Reference ...

Entire Transcript in Adobe Acrobat Format - National Reference ... Entire Transcript in Adobe Acrobat Format - National Reference ...

bioethics.georgetown.edu
from bioethics.georgetown.edu More from this publisher
26.10.2014 Views

31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 going to be confusing about why the matrix makes any sense. DR. EMANUEL: Hold on. That I do not think is fair to the history of what happened, David. I mean, that suggests that somehow this is Zeke Emanuel foisting this and the rest are signing on. This was a long debate of us trying to reason through what the protections are and those three, I should say, are not the three we have today. Let's be clear. We have two today. Community consultation exists no where in the Common Rule. We have individual consent and we have IRB review. We actually added permutations on those in terms of IRB administrative review, possibly a general consent as opposed to a specific consent, so we have been trying -- I think we have been trying to be innovative in the kind of requirements we are suggesting. I think this has been a long process of deliberation, you know, and one of the problems of the subcommittee framework is the months of trying to think through and argue through by using examples, you know, the Physicians Health Study or the Angiogenesis Factor of Breast Cancer Women, or some of the other studies, the kind of reasoning that we have collectively come to is hard to, you know, recapture in a short succinct manner. I mean, it may be, you know, if we want to

32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 think of some research and test out in those boxes that may be the most effective way to get everyone at the same place. DR. MURRAY: Bernie? DR. LO: Since I am congenitally optimistic I would like to suggest I think this is actually a fruitful discussion. I mean, first of all, I think as we were talking yesterday about planning the outline and the drafts of the report, I think here we have clearly seen that we need to separate out our recommendations in terms of our final matrix from the intuitive matrix most people bring to this and to sort of lay out in an earlier chapter all the considerations that lead to different rows and columns which, I think, we intended to collapse down in the draft that we saw yesterday. The second issue is one of maybe we should readdress the issue of are there other types of protections other than just IRB review, consent and individual consent and community consultation. I think there are other things out there that we should think about. One is sort of a national review body beyond IRB review, sort of a RAC model if you like, with all the pros and cons of that. Secondly, we have played around with variations on IRB review and I think in addition to administration

31<br />

1<br />

2<br />

3<br />

4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

8<br />

9<br />

10<br />

11<br />

12<br />

13<br />

14<br />

15<br />

16<br />

17<br />

18<br />

19<br />

20<br />

21<br />

22<br />

23<br />

24<br />

go<strong>in</strong>g to be confus<strong>in</strong>g about why the matrix makes any sense.<br />

DR. EMANUEL: Hold on. That I do not th<strong>in</strong>k is<br />

fair to the history of what happened, David. I mean, that<br />

suggests that somehow this is Zeke Emanuel foist<strong>in</strong>g this<br />

and the rest are sign<strong>in</strong>g on.<br />

This was a long debate of us try<strong>in</strong>g to reason<br />

through what the protections are and those three, I should<br />

say, are not the three we have today. Let's be clear. We<br />

have two today. Community consultation exists no where <strong>in</strong><br />

the Common Rule. We have <strong>in</strong>dividual consent and we have<br />

IRB review. We actually added permutations on those <strong>in</strong><br />

terms of IRB adm<strong>in</strong>istrative review, possibly a general<br />

consent as opposed to a specific consent, so we have been<br />

try<strong>in</strong>g -- I th<strong>in</strong>k we have been try<strong>in</strong>g to be <strong>in</strong>novative <strong>in</strong><br />

the k<strong>in</strong>d of requirements we are suggest<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

I th<strong>in</strong>k this has been a long process of<br />

deliberation, you know, and one of the problems of the<br />

subcommittee framework is the months of try<strong>in</strong>g to th<strong>in</strong>k<br />

through and argue through by us<strong>in</strong>g examples, you know, the<br />

Physicians Health Study or the Angiogenesis Factor of<br />

Breast Cancer Women, or some of the other studies, the k<strong>in</strong>d<br />

of reason<strong>in</strong>g that we have collectively come to is hard to,<br />

you know, recapture <strong>in</strong> a short succ<strong>in</strong>ct manner.<br />

I mean, it may be, you know, if we want to

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!