z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Ethical issues in naturalistic versus controlled trials
Author(s) -
Hanfried Helmchen
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
dialogues in clinical neuroscience
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.11
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1958-5969
pISSN - 1294-8322
DOI - 10.31887/dcns.2011.13.2/hhelmchen
Subject(s) - observational study , psychology , naturalism , informed consent , clinical trial , ethical issues , medicine , engineering ethics , alternative medicine , epistemology , philosophy , pathology , engineering
Ethical core issues in research with human subjects are related to informed consent and risk-benefit assessment. This is valid for all types of studies. However, there has been much greater focus of ethical considerations on controlled clinical trials than on naturalistic trials, probably because the former are interventional in nature and may have unknown and perhaps severe somatic risks, whereas naturalistic studies seem not to intervene but only to observe, and therefore are assumed to have fewer or almost no risks. However, there are also ethical implications in naturalistic trials, although their weight is differently accentuated, more with potential, more with potential psychological burdens of the observational procedures and more with potential physical risks in interventional trials. This will be elaborated with examples of placebo-controlled trials and of incidental findings in screenings, of marketing influences on observational studies, and of psychological burdens by survey interviews. The ethical implications wilt be analyzed within a more general framework, Finally, recommendations will be offered.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom