Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:08:07.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Unfortunate Experiment?

The Future of Ethical Review in New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

JOHN MCMILLAN  and
LYNNE BOWYER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This report describes the system of ethical review that was adopted in New Zealand based on the findings and recommendations from the Cartwright Inquiry in 1988. It discusses the changes made to this system under recent governmental initiatives enacted by the National Party, and some of the implications of those changes.

Keywords

research ethicsethical reviewresearch participantsconsent
Type
Special Section: Bioethics Beyond Borders
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 268 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Committee of Inquiry into Allegations Concerning the Treatment of Cervical Cancer at National Women’s Hospital and Other Related Matters. The Report of the Cervical Cancer Inquiry. Auckland, New Zealand, 1988.Google Scholar

2. New Zealand Parliament Questions for oral answer: state owned energy companies New Zealand Parliament website (Sept 2013) http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20130924_00000002/2-state-owned-energy-companies-sales%E2%80%94meridian-energy (last accessed 18 March 2014).

3. New Zealand Parliament Questions for oral answer: Mining in Conservation Areas: the Denniston Plateau. http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/50HansQ_20130529_00000006/6-mining-in-conservation-areas%E2%80%94denniston-plateau (last accessed 18 March 2014).

4. Manning, J, ed. The Cartwright Papers: Essays on the Cervical Cancer Inquiry 1987–88. Wellington: Bridget Williams; 2009, at 30.Google Scholar See, e.g., McIndoe, WA, Mclean, MR, Jone, RW, Mullins, P. The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1984;64:451–8.Google ScholarPubMed

5. Emanuel, E, Grady, C, Crouch, R, Lie, R, Miller, F, Wendler, D. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Bryder, L. A History of “the Unfortunate Experiment” at National Women’s Hospital. Auckland: Auckland University Press; 2009, at 197.Google Scholar

7. See note 4, Manning 2009, at 29.

8. See note 4, Manning 2009, at 31–2.

9. Bunkle, P, Coney, S. An unfortunate experiment at National Women’s Hospital. Metro 1987 June:46–65.Google Scholar

10. Skegg, D. Cervical screening. Letter to the editor. New Zealand Medical Journal 1986 Jan;22:26–7.Google Scholar

11. See note 1, Committee of Inquiry 1988, at 214.

12. See note 1, Committee of Inquiry 1988, at 214.

13. New Zealand House of Representatives. Inquiry into Improving New Zealand’s Environment to Support Innovation through Clinical Trials. Wellington: New Zealand Parliament; 2011 June, at 28.

14. See note 13, New Zealand House of Representatives 2011, at 5.

15. Government Response to the Report of the Health Committee on Its Inquiry into Improving New Zealand’s Environment to Support Innovation through Clinical Trials. Presented to the House of Representations in accordance with Standing Order 248 Wellington: New Zealand Parliament; 2011, at 5.

16. See note 15, Government Response to the Report of the Health Committee 2011, at 5.

17. See note 13, New Zealand House of Representatives 2011, at 8, 34, 61.