medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista Médica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social

  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2014, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2014; 52 (6)

Clinical research XXIV. From clinical judgment to ethics in research on humans

Pérez-Rodríguez M, Palacios-Cruz L, Rivas-Ruiz R, Talavera JO
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 9
Page: 666-672
PDF size: 62.94 Kb.


Key words:

Bioethics, Informed consent, Beneficence.

ABSTRACT

Bioethics in research is an essential part of the structured review process of an article and it is based on three fundamental principles: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. In addition to not providing valid knowledge, a research with inadequate design, execution and statistical analysis is not ethical either, since these methodological deficiencies will produce information that will not be useful and, therefore, the risks that the participants were exposed to will have been in vain. Beyond scientific validity, there are other aspects that outline if an investigation is ethical, such as the clinical and social value of a study, a fair selection of participants, favorable risk-benefi t balance, an independent review, the informed consent and respect for participants and potential participants. Throughout the article here presented, the documents that profi le the behavior of investigators to protect the participants, such as the Declaration of Helsinki, the national regulations that rule us and the differences between research without risk, with minimal risk and with greater than minimal risk are discussed. That like in daily life, behavior in research involving human participants must be self-regulated , ie , people with knowledge of the existence of the law discover that the man is outside the realm of nature where work is done under the necessity of natural causality , and falls within the scope of the will; only if the man is free to decide their actions may be a law regulating their action.


REFERENCES

  1. Yarborough M. Taking steps to increase the trustworthiness of scientifi c research. FASEB J. 2014 Jun 13. pii: fj.13-246603

  2. Belhekar MN, Bhalerao SS, Munshi RP. Ethics reporting practices in clinical research publications: A review of four Indian journals. Perspect Clin Res. 2014;5(3):129-33. Disponible en http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073550/

  3. Dingemann J, Dingemann C, Ure B. Failure to report ethical approval and informed consent in paediatric surgical publications. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2011;21 (4):215-9.

  4. Marwick C. Philosophy on Trial: Examining ethics of Clinical Investigations. JAMA. 1988;(6)260;749-51.

  5. Norma ofi cial mexicana NOM-012-SSA3-2012, que establece los criterios para la ejecución de proyectos de investigación para la salud en seres humanos. Diario Ofi cial de la Federación del 4 de enero de 2013. Disponible en http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle. php?codigo=5284148&fecha=04/01/2013

  6. Reglamento de la Ley General de Salud en Materia de Investigación para la Salud. Diario Ofi cial de la Federación del 2 de abril de 2014. Disponible en http://www.salud. gob.mx/unidades/cdi/nom/compi/rlgsmis.html

  7. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701-11.

  8. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Eikelboom J,Oldgren J. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fi brillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361: 1139-51.

  9. Kant I. Fundamentación de la metafísica de las costumbres. [traducción de Manuel García Morente]. Edición digital basada en la sexta edición. Madrid, España: Espasa-Calpe; 1980.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2014;52