首页> 外文期刊>Surgical infections >Pro-Con Perspectives on Ethics in Surgical Research: Update from the 39th Annual Surgical Infection Society Meeting
【24h】

Pro-Con Perspectives on Ethics in Surgical Research: Update from the 39th Annual Surgical Infection Society Meeting

机译:关于外科研究伦理的Pro-CAN视角:第39届年度手术感染协会的更新

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background: Surgical research is potentially invasive, high-risk, and costly. Research that advances medical dogma must justify both its ends and its means. Although ethical questions do not always have simple answers, it is critically important for the clinician, researcher, and patient to approach these dilemmas and surgical research in a thoughtful, conscientious manner.Methods: We present four ethical issues in surgical research and discuss the opposing viewpoints. These topics were presented and discussed at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society as pro-con debates. The presenters of each opinion developed a succinct summary of their respective reviews for this publication.Results: The key subjects for these pro-con debates were: (1) Should patients be enrolled for time-sensitive surgical infection research using an opt-out or an opt-in strategy? (2) Should patients who are being enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing surgery with a non-operative intervention pay the costs of their treatment arm? (3) Should the scientific community embrace open access journals as the future of scientific publishing? (4) Should the majority of funding go to clinical or basic science research? Important points were illustrated in each of the pro-con presentations and illustrated the difficulties that are facing the performance and payment of infection research in the future.Conclusions: Surgical research is ethically complex, with conflicting demands between individual patients, society, and healthcare economics. At present, there are no clear answers to these and the many other ethical issues facing research in the future. Answers will only come from continued robust dialogue among all stakeholders in surgical research.
机译:背景:手术研究可能是侵入性的,高风险和昂贵的。前提医疗教条的研究必须证明其目的是合理的。虽然道德问题并不总是有简单的答案,但对于临床医生,研究人员和患者来说,以周到,勤勉的方式接近这些困境和手术研究是至关重要的。方法:我们在外科研究中提出了四个道德问题并讨论了对方观点。这些主题是在手术感染学会的第39次年会作为Pro-Con辩论时讨论的。每个意见的演示者都制定了一个简洁的摘要,他们对此出版物的各自审查。结果:这些亲辩论的主要科目是:(1)如果患者应使用退出或选择患者注册时间敏感的外科感染研究选择选择策略? (2)是否应在随机对照试验(RCT)中注册的患者与非手术干预的手术进行比较,支付其治疗部队的费用? (3)科学界应接受开放获取期刊作为科学出版的未来吗? (4)大部分资金是否应该转到临床或基础科学研究?每个PRO-CON演示文稿中展示了重要观点,并说明了在未来面临性能和关注感染研究的困难。结论:外科研究是道德复杂的,各个患者,社会和医疗经济学之间的需求相互冲突。目前,对未来研究面临的许多其他道德问题没有明确的答案。答案只会来自外科研究中所有利益相关者之间的持续强劲对话。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Surgical infections》 |2020年第4期|332-342|共11页
  • 作者单位

    MetroHlth Med Ctr Dept Surg Cleveland OH USA|Case Western Reserve Univ Dept Quantitat & Populat Hlth Sci Cleveland OH 44106 USA;

    MetroHlth Med Ctr Dept Surg Cleveland OH USA;

    Georgetown Univ Sch Med Dept Surg Burn Ctr Medstar Washington Hosp Ctr Washington DC USA;

    Atrium Hlth Carolinas Med Ctr Dept Surg Charlotte NC USA;

    Univ Minnesota Dept Surg Box 242 UMHC Minneapolis MN 55455 USA;

    Northwestern Univ Dept Surg Chicago IL 60611 USA;

    Weill Cornell Med Coll Dept Surg New York NY USA|Weill Cornell Med Coll Dept Publ Hlth New York NY USA;

    Zucker Sch Med Hofstra Northwell Dept Surg Hempstead NY USA|Zucker Sch Med Hofstra Northwell Dept Sci Educ Hempstead NY USA;

    Georgetown Univ Sch Med Dept Surg Burn Ctr Medstar Washington Hosp Ctr Washington DC USA;

    Univ Colorado Sch Med Dept Surg Denver Hlth Med Ctr Denver CO USA;

  • 收录信息 美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    ethics; informed consent; research; research funding; surgery;

    机译:道德;知情同意;研究;研究资金;手术;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号