In Experimental Hand Transplantation, Whose Views About Outcomes Should Matter Most
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15745280 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andrea F Dimartini (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, corresponding author), Mary Amanda Dew (0000-0002-4666-1870, Donor Network West) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 11 |
| Pages | E936-942 |
| Publication date | 2019-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The AMA Journal of Ethic (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2376-6980 • E-ISSN: 2376-6980 |
| Publisher | American Medical Association (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1001/amajethics.2019.936 |
| PMID | 31742541 |
| OpenAlex | W2987801215 |
| Language | EN |
Consent to any experimental procedure, even when offered as therapeutic, involves extensive discussion between patient-subjects and clinician-researchers. Decision making should be shared with a focus on potential risks and benefits of enrolling in a protocol. Just as patients who underwent nonexperimental interventions might experience regret or reconsider autonomously made choices, patient-subjects who are undergoing or who have undergone experimental therapies should be afforded latitude to reconsider their decisions. Although clinician-researchers tend to be deeply invested in gathering data about patient-subjects' experiences, they are obligated to express respect for patient-subjects' fundamental right to stop being enrolled in research
Alternative medicine · Protocol (science · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Regret · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · Computer Science · Medicine · Organ and Tissue Transplantation Research · Organ Donation and Transplantation · Psychology · Social Psychology · Surgery · Transplantation
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |