Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Issues in Surgical Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Ethics

  • 789 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Meakins JL. Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence. Am J Surg. 2002;183:399–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Axelrod DA, Goold SD. Maintaining trust in the surgeon-patient relationship: challenges for the new millennium. Arch Surg. 2000;135:55–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brock C. Risk, responsibility and surgery in the 1890s and early 1900s. Med Hist. 2013;57:317–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1436–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Reverby SM. Listening to narratives from the Tuskegee syphilis study. Lancet. 2011;377:1646–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rothstein MA. Currents in contemporary ethics. Research privacy under HIPAA and the common rule. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33:154–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Menikoff J, Kaneshiro J, Pritchard I. The common rule, updated. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:613–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Human D. Conflicts of interest in science and medicine: the physician’s perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2002;8:273–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Snyder J, Gauthier C. Evidence-based medical ethics: cases for practice-based learning. New York: Humana Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet. 1996;347:984–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Weil RJ. The future of surgical research. PLoS Med. 2004;1:e13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Paradis C. Bias in surgical research. Ann Surg. 2008;248:180–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McCulloch P, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lynn J, et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:666–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Varkey P, Reller MK, Resar RK. Basics of quality improvement in health care. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:735–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Horng S, Grady C. Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB. 2003;25:11–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sihvonen R, et al. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2515–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Horng S, Miller FG. Is placebo surgery unethical? N Engl J Med. 2002;347:137–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Surgeons, A.C.o. Revised statement on health care industry representatives in the operating room. (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Djulbegovic B, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet. 2000;356:635–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Capri A. E.A. Scientific Ethics. Visionlearning. 2009;2

    Google Scholar 

  34. Piwowar HA, et al. Towards a data sharing culture: recommendations for leadership from academic health centers. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Peng GC. Moving towards model reproducibility and reusability. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2016;63(10):1997–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Casadevall A, Fang FC. Reproducible science. Infect Immun. 2010;78:4972–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Suggested Literature

  • Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Horng S, Miller FG. Is placebo surgery unethical. NEJM. 2002;347:137–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Chicago, Department of Surgery, Chicago, IL, USA

    Richard Jacobson & John Alverdy

  2. Rush University Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Chicago, IL, USA

    Richard Jacobson & Laurel Mulder

Authors
  1. Richard Jacobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laurel Mulder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Alverdy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Alverdy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Alberto R. Ferreres

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jacobson, R., Mulder, L., Alverdy, J. (2019). Ethical Issues in Surgical Research. In: Ferreres, A. (eds) Surgical Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05963-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05964-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation