Advertisement

Ethical Issues in Surgical Research

  • Richard Jacobson
  • Laurel Mulder
  • John AlverdyEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In the twentieth century, ethical evaluation of human subject research was dependent on various guidelines, each developed in response to unethical behavior to avoid repetition of past misdeeds. This piecemeal system left gaps that continued to permit ethical flaws and failure in research. In 2001, Emanuel et al. proposed a set of requirements that now serves as the “gold standard” for ethical conduct of human subject research. These guidelines apply to all forms of investigation, including surgical interventions. Investigators must be familiar with these guidelines and the context in which they arose to prevent future ethical violations.

Keywords

Research ethics Human subject research Quality improvement Sham surgery Authorship 

Notes

Glossary

Human subject research

A systematic investigation designed to produce generalizable knowledge from observations of human subjects. This term applies broadly, and investigations classified as human subject research are generally subject to IRB review.

Protected health information (PHI)

Personally identifiable health information (by which the identity of a study subject could be ascertained) maintained in a medical record that includes data on physical health, mental health, payment information, or genetic information.

Clinical equipoise

A state in which two or more therapeutics exist that could treat a given condition; however a lack of strong evidence regarding superiority of either treatment exists. Equipoise is essential to the ethical conduct of clinical research.

Internal validity

The relative truth of conclusions drawn through experimentation. Internal validity is directly related to the accuracy with which experimental conditions eliminate confounding and minimize bias. A study with high internal validity can make strong claims regarding causality, rather than simple associations.

External validity

The extent to which the results of a study apply to the population being modeled. A study with high external validity is highly generalizable to large patient populations.

Quality improvement

Any systematic, data-guided analysis of healthcare processes to improve the quality of care by measuring adherence to evidence-based guidelines of clinical best practice.

References

  1. 1.
    Meakins JL. Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence. Am J Surg. 2002;183:399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelrod DA, Goold SD. Maintaining trust in the surgeon-patient relationship: challenges for the new millennium. Arch Surg. 2000;135:55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brock C. Risk, responsibility and surgery in the 1890s and early 1900s. Med Hist. 2013;57:317–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1436–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Medical Association (AMM). Helsinki declaration. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Assist Inferm Ric. 2001;20:104–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reverby SM. Listening to narratives from the Tuskegee syphilis study. Lancet. 2011;377:1646–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rothstein MA. Currents in contemporary ethics. Research privacy under HIPAA and the common rule. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33:154–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Menikoff J, Kaneshiro J, Pritchard I. The common rule, updated. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:613–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Human D. Conflicts of interest in science and medicine: the physician’s perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2002;8:273–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kass NE, et al. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Cent Rep. 2013;Spec No:S4–S15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Snyder J, Gauthier C. Evidence-based medical ethics: cases for practice-based learning. New York: Humana Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet. 1996;347:984–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weil RJ. The future of surgical research. PLoS Med. 2004;1:e13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bennett CL, Stryker SJ, Ferreira MR, Adams J, Beart RW Jr. The learning curve for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Preliminary results from a prospective analysis of 1194 laparoscopic-assisted colectomies. Arch Surg. 1997;132:41–4.; discussion 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paradis C. Bias in surgical research. Ann Surg. 2008;248:180–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCulloch P, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strasberg SM, Brunt LM. Rationale and use of the critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lynn J, et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:666–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Varkey P, Reller MK, Resar RK. Basics of quality improvement in health care. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:735–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:721–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horng S, Grady C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB. 2003;25:11–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sihvonen R, et al. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2515–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruffin JM, et al. A co-operative double-blind evaluation of gastric "freezing" in the treatment of duodenal ulcer. N Engl J Med. 1969;281:16–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cobb LA, Thomas GI, Dillard DH, Merendino KA, Bruce RA. An evaluation of internal-mammary-artery ligation by a double-blind technic. N Engl J Med. 1959;260:1115–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horng S, Miller FG. Is placebo surgery unethical? N Engl J Med. 2002;347:137–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Surgeons, A.C.o. Revised statement on health care industry representatives in the operating room. (2016).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Djulbegovic B, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356:635–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Editors, I.C.o.M.J. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. (2017).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Agel J, DeCoster TA, Swiontkowski MF, Roberts CS. How many orthopaedic surgeons does it take to write a manuscript? A vignette-based discussion of authorship in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:e96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marusic A, Bosnjak L, Jeroncic A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One. 2011;6:e23477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jagsi R, et al. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature--a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:281–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Capri A. E.A. Scientific Ethics. Visionlearning. 2009;2Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Piwowar HA, et al. Towards a data sharing culture: recommendations for leadership from academic health centers. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peng GC. Moving towards model reproducibility and reusability. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016;63(10):1997–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Casadevall A, Fang FC. Reproducible science. Infect Immun. 2010;78:4972–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suggested Literature

  1. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Horng S, Miller FG. Is placebo surgery unethical. NEJM. 2002;347:137–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, Jennings B, Levine RJ, Davidoff F, et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(9):666–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Jacobson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laurel Mulder
    • 2
  • John Alverdy
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.University of Chicago, Department of SurgeryChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Rush University Medical Center, Department of SurgeryChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations