Justifying cardiac arrest research on the emergency exception to informed consent does not provide latitude of bold innovations in approaches to treatment because it constrains the arms of a trial to treatments for which there is evidence that they are balanced so evenly that a physician should say honestly that there is no reason to prefer one over the other and no reason to prefer either over treatments currently in use. Advocacy of broader criteria would have to be defended by an argument that exposing patients to more risk and less certain benefit than treatments in use would protect a patient's right to and capacity for autonomy
引用
收藏
页码:118 / 124
页数:7
相关论文
共 1 条
[1]
Abramson, Safar, Deferred consent: Use in clinical resuscitation research, Ann Emerg Med, 19, pp. 781-784, (1990)