Redressing the balance - the ethics of not entering an eligible patient on a randomised clinical trial

E. Segelov; M. H.N. Tattersall; A. S. Coates

Redressing the balance - the ethics of not entering an eligible patient on a randomised clinical trial

E. Segelov, M. H.N. Tattersall, A. S. Coates

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Other › peer-review

Abstract

Summary: A double standard exists whereby a treatment given outside a clinical trial is less stringently reviewed than a protocol treatment. We propose a remedy which would require the decision not to participate in an approved, available clinical trial to be subject to the same ethical requirements as trial entry.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	103-105
Number of pages	3
Journal	Annals of Oncology
Volume	3
Issue number	2
Publication status	Published - 1 Feb 1992
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Consent
Ethics
Randomised clinical trial

Cite this

@article{44fe2fd30b6e44b29394616165c53d8a,

title = "Redressing the balance - the ethics of not entering an eligible patient on a randomised clinical trial",

abstract = "Summary: A double standard exists whereby a treatment given outside a clinical trial is less stringently reviewed than a protocol treatment. We propose a remedy which would require the decision not to participate in an approved, available clinical trial to be subject to the same ethical requirements as trial entry.",

keywords = "Consent, Ethics, Randomised clinical trial",

author = "E. Segelov and Tattersall, \{M. H.N.\} and Coates, \{A. S.\}",

year = "1992",

month = feb,

day = "1",

language = "English",

volume = "3",

pages = "103--105",

journal = "Annals of Oncology",

issn = "0923-7534",

publisher = "Elsevier BV",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Redressing the balance - the ethics of not entering an eligible patient on a randomised clinical trial

AU - Segelov, E.

AU - Tattersall, M. H.N.

AU - Coates, A. S.

PY - 1992/2/1

Y1 - 1992/2/1

N2 - Summary: A double standard exists whereby a treatment given outside a clinical trial is less stringently reviewed than a protocol treatment. We propose a remedy which would require the decision not to participate in an approved, available clinical trial to be subject to the same ethical requirements as trial entry.

AB - Summary: A double standard exists whereby a treatment given outside a clinical trial is less stringently reviewed than a protocol treatment. We propose a remedy which would require the decision not to participate in an approved, available clinical trial to be subject to the same ethical requirements as trial entry.

KW - Consent

KW - Ethics

KW - Randomised clinical trial

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/0026500461

M3 - Article

C2 - 1606080

AN - SCOPUS:0026500461

SN - 0923-7534

VL - 3

SP - 103

EP - 105

JO - Annals of Oncology

JF - Annals of Oncology

IS - 2

ER -

Redressing the balance - the ethics of not entering an eligible patient on a randomised clinical trial

Abstract

Keywords

Other files and links

Cite this