What the ANPRM Missed: Additional Needs for IRB Reform. Issue 2 (26th June 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lidz, Charles W.; Garverich, Suzanne
• Is Part Of: Journal of law, medicine & ethics. Volume 41:Issue 2(2013)
• Page Start: 390
• Page End: 396
• Publication Date: 2013-06-26
• Subjects: Medical laws and legislation -- United States -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Law and legislation -- United States -- Periodicals; Medical ethics -- Periodicals; Jurisprudence -- Periodicals; Legislation, Medical -- Periodicals; Legislation, Nursing -- Periodicals; Ethics -- Periodicals; Forensic Medicine -- Periodicals; Nursing -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Societies -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Law and legislation; Medical ethics; Medical laws and legislation; United States; Periodicals; 344.73041
• DOI: 10.1111/jlme.12050
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1073-1105

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <p>Institutional Review Boards are mandated to carry out the requirements of the Common Rule, and it is widely agreed that they are appropriate and necessary mechanisms to ensure the ethical conduct of human research. In this paper, we suggest that the changes proposed in ANPRM, although generally helpful, fail to take into consideration how IRBs actually review applications and therefore do not adequately address some of the problems that may be leading to ineffective human subject protection.</p> </abstract>