FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 340:1430-1434 May 6, 1999 Number 18 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

For research with human subjects, the more things change, the more they remain the same. In the 50-odd years since the 10 principles of the Nuremberg Code were set forth by the U.S. judges who convicted the Nazi concentration-camp physicians of crimes against humanity, the tensions inherent in using human beings as a means to advance biomedical knowledge have surfaced repeatedly. Ever more detailed codes and regulations from governments as well as professional bodies, such as the World Medical Association in its oft-revised Declaration of Helsinki,¹ have not put the subject to rest. Indeed, the lesson of the past half-century . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The Problems of Therapeutic Research

Assessing the Capacity to Consent to Participate in Research

The Use of Patients in Research to Benefit Other Patients

The Need to Confront Problems Openly and Solve Them

Address reprint requests to Professor Capron at mmiller@law.usc.edu.

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Stocking, C. B., Hougham, G. W., Danner, D. D., Patterson, M. B., Whitehouse, P. J., Sachs, G. A. (2006). Speaking of research advance directives: Planning for future research participation. Neurology 66: 1361-1366 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dunn, L. B, Candilis, P. J, Roberts, L. W. (2006). Emerging Empirical Evidence on the Ethics of Schizophrenia Research. Schizophr Bull 32: 47-68 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Adamis, D, Martin, F C, Treloar, A, Macdonald, A J D (2005). Capacity, consent, and selection bias in a study of delirium. J. Med. Ethics 31: 137-143 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Stocking, C. B., Hougham, G. W., Baron, A. R., Sachs, G. A. (2003). Are the rules for research with subjects with dementia changing?: Views from the field. Neurology 61: 1649-1651 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bravo, G, Paquet, M, Dubois, M-F (2003). Knowledge of the legislation governing proxy consent to treatment and research. J. Med. Ethics 29: 44-50 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Poythress, N. G. (2002). Obtaining Informed Consent for Research: A Model for Use with Participants Who Are Mentally Ill. J Law Med Ethics 30: 367-374  
• Cohen, P. J. (2002). Untreated Addiction Imposes an Ethical Bar to Recruiting Addicts for Non-Therapeutic Studies of Addictive Drugs. J Law Med Ethics 30: 73-81  
• Coppolino, M., Ackerson, L. (2001). Do Surrogate Decision Makers Provide Accurate Consent for Intensive Care Research?. Chest 119: 603-612 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., Grady, C. (2000). What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?. JAMA 283: 2701-2711 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Woodward, B. (1999). Challenges to Human Subject Protections in US Medical Research. JAMA 282: 1947-1952 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Charney, D. S. (1999). The National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report: The Response of the Psychiatric Research Community Is Critical to Restoring Public Trust. Arch Gen Psychiatry 56: 699-700 [Full Text]