SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 
 

Citations (1)

Beta

 
 

Footnotes (287)

Beta

 


 


Download | Share | Email | Add to Briefcase | Buy Hard Copy

Duties to Subjects in Clinical Research

Carl H. Coleman
Seton Hall University School of Law



Vanderbilt Law Review, 2005

Abstract:     
Clinical trials pose a fundamental conflict between physicians' commitment to protecting the medical best interests of current patients and the goal of producing scientific knowledge for the potential benefit of patients in the future. While this conflict has long been of interest to physicians and bioethicists, it has largely escaped the attention of legal scholars. That is likely to change, however, as a growing wave of litigation brought by individuals injured in clinical trials will force courts to determine the nature of researchers' legal obligations to subjects. In making these determinations, this Article argues, courts must recognize that medical research is fundamentally different from ordinary clinical treatment, in terms of both its underlying purposes and its methodology. In light of these differences, requiring researchers to adhere to the same therapeutic obligations as treating physicians, as some commentators have advocated, would be tantamount to a virtual prohibition of clinical trials, an outcome that courts should reject. At the same time, it would be a mistake to hold that researchers have no duty whatsoever to protect the medical best interests of individual subjects. This Article therefore develops an alternative framework for conceptualizing researchers' duties to subjects, using principles governing conflicts of interests in fiduciary relationships a starting point for analysis. These principles demonstrate that it is possible to protect vulnerable individuals in dependent relationships without absolutely precluding the pursuit of goals that potentially conflict with those individuals' overall welfare. Importantly, however, consent is generally insufficient to justify deviations from the pursuit of the best interests of the beneficiary in a fiduciary relationship; instead, the law imposes additional requirements to ensure that such deviations are objectively fair. After explaining why a similar approach makes sense in the context of clinical trials, this Article provides a specific framework for using those principles to resolve conflicts between the pursuit of scientific knowledge and subjects' medical needs.

Keywords: Human subject, research, duty, fiduciary

Accepted Paper Series

Date posted: July 28, 2004 ; Last revised: September 14, 2004

Suggested Citation

Coleman, Carl H., Duties to Subjects in Clinical Research. Vanderbilt Law Review, 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=567882


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

Carl H. Coleman (Contact Author)
Seton Hall University School of Law ( email )
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102-5210
United States
973-642-8586 (Phone)
973-642-8194 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,956
Downloads: 167
Download Rank: 51,046
Citations: 1
Footnotes: 287

© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was served by apollo6 in 0.109 seconds.