Getting the ethics right regarding research in the emergency setting: Lessons from the PolyHeme Study

Neal W. Dicker, Jeremy Sugarman

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Research in emergency settings (RES) has become a major public issue with urgent policy implications. Significant attention has focused recently on RES in response to the trial of PolyHeme, a synthetic blood substitute, in trauma victims in hemorrhagic shock. Unfortunately, the discussion of the PolyHeme trial in the popular and scholarly press leaves important questions unanswered. This paper articulates three important lessons from the PolyHeme trial that have significant policy implications. First, the RES regulations should be re-visited, particularly the requirement that existing treatments be unproven or unsatisfactory in order for research to be acceptable without consent. Second, further conceptual and empirical scholarship is needed to accomplish the goal of effectively involving communities. Third, a more subtle analysis is needed regarding how to balance the needs of maintaining public trust and protecting confidential trade information in the context of RES.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationEmergency Research Ethics
PublisherTaylor and Francis
Pages229-246
Number of pages18
Volume4
ISBN (Electronic)9781315256634
ISBN (Print)9781409446811
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2 2017

Fingerprint

moral philosophy
trauma
regulation
community

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Getting the ethics right regarding research in the emergency setting : Lessons from the PolyHeme Study. / Dicker, Neal W.; Sugarman, Jeremy.

Emergency Research Ethics. Vol. 4 Taylor and Francis, 2017. p. 229-246.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Dicker, Neal W. ; Sugarman, Jeremy. / Getting the ethics right regarding research in the emergency setting : Lessons from the PolyHeme Study. Emergency Research Ethics. Vol. 4 Taylor and Francis, 2017. pp. 229-246
@inbook{52ad705f347d4335be276baa48140923,
title = "Getting the ethics right regarding research in the emergency setting: Lessons from the PolyHeme Study",
abstract = "Research in emergency settings (RES) has become a major public issue with urgent policy implications. Significant attention has focused recently on RES in response to the trial of PolyHeme, a synthetic blood substitute, in trauma victims in hemorrhagic shock. Unfortunately, the discussion of the PolyHeme trial in the popular and scholarly press leaves important questions unanswered. This paper articulates three important lessons from the PolyHeme trial that have significant policy implications. First, the RES regulations should be re-visited, particularly the requirement that existing treatments be unproven or unsatisfactory in order for research to be acceptable without consent. Second, further conceptual and empirical scholarship is needed to accomplish the goal of effectively involving communities. Third, a more subtle analysis is needed regarding how to balance the needs of maintaining public trust and protecting confidential trade information in the context of RES.",
author = "Dicker, {Neal W.} and Jeremy Sugarman",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "2",
doi = "10.4324/9781315256634",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781409446811",
volume = "4",
pages = "229--246",
booktitle = "Emergency Research Ethics",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Getting the ethics right regarding research in the emergency setting

T2 - Lessons from the PolyHeme Study

AU - Dicker, Neal W.

AU - Sugarman, Jeremy

PY - 2017/3/2

Y1 - 2017/3/2

N2 - Research in emergency settings (RES) has become a major public issue with urgent policy implications. Significant attention has focused recently on RES in response to the trial of PolyHeme, a synthetic blood substitute, in trauma victims in hemorrhagic shock. Unfortunately, the discussion of the PolyHeme trial in the popular and scholarly press leaves important questions unanswered. This paper articulates three important lessons from the PolyHeme trial that have significant policy implications. First, the RES regulations should be re-visited, particularly the requirement that existing treatments be unproven or unsatisfactory in order for research to be acceptable without consent. Second, further conceptual and empirical scholarship is needed to accomplish the goal of effectively involving communities. Third, a more subtle analysis is needed regarding how to balance the needs of maintaining public trust and protecting confidential trade information in the context of RES.

AB - Research in emergency settings (RES) has become a major public issue with urgent policy implications. Significant attention has focused recently on RES in response to the trial of PolyHeme, a synthetic blood substitute, in trauma victims in hemorrhagic shock. Unfortunately, the discussion of the PolyHeme trial in the popular and scholarly press leaves important questions unanswered. This paper articulates three important lessons from the PolyHeme trial that have significant policy implications. First, the RES regulations should be re-visited, particularly the requirement that existing treatments be unproven or unsatisfactory in order for research to be acceptable without consent. Second, further conceptual and empirical scholarship is needed to accomplish the goal of effectively involving communities. Third, a more subtle analysis is needed regarding how to balance the needs of maintaining public trust and protecting confidential trade information in the context of RES.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061574259&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061574259&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4324/9781315256634

DO - 10.4324/9781315256634

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85061574259

SN - 9781409446811

VL - 4

SP - 229

EP - 246

BT - Emergency Research Ethics

PB - Taylor and Francis

ER -