Miller, F. G. Silverman, H. J., “The Ethical Relevance of the Standard of Care in the Design of Clinical Trials,” American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 169, no. 5 (2004): 562–64; Miller, F. G. Brody, H., “The Clinician-investigator: Unavoidable but Manageable Tension,” Kennedy Institute Ethics Journal 13, no. 4 (2003): 329–46; Miller, F. G. Brody, H., “What Makes Placebo-controlled Trials Unethical?” American Journal of Bioethics 2, no. 2 (2002): 3–9.Google Scholar

Miller, F. G. Brody, H., “A Critique of Clinical Equipoise,” Hastings Center Report 33, no. 3 (2003): 19–28 at 20, 24–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id. at 24.Google Scholar

Id. at 26–27.Google Scholar

Temple, R., “Government Viewpoint of Clinical Trials,” Drug Information Journal (1982): 10–17; Temple, R., “Problems in Interpreting Active Control Equivalence Trials,” Accountability 4 (1996): 267–75; Temple, R. Ellenberg, S. S., “Placebo-Controlled Trials and Active-Controlled Trials in the Evaluation of New Treatments,” Annals of Internal Medicine 133 (2001): 455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glass, K. C. Waring, D., “Effective Trial Design Need Not Conflict with Good Patient Care,” American Journal of Bioethics 2, no. 2 (2002): 25–26; Fergusson, D. Glass, K. C. Waring, D. Shapiro, S., “Turning a Blind Eye: The Success of Blinding Reported in a Random Sample of Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials,” British Medical Journal 328, no.7437 (2004): 432–40.Google Scholar

Id.; see also Benjamin, F., “Placebo-Controlled Trials and the Logic of Clinical Purpose,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 12 (1990): 1–6; Rothman, K. J. Michels, K. B., “The Continuing Unethical Use of Placebo Controls,” N. Engl. J. Med., 331 (1994): 394–98; Freedman, B. Glass, K. C. Weijer, C., “Placebo Orthodoxy in Clinical Research II: Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Myths,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 24 (1996): 252–59, at 256; Glass, K. C. Waring, D., “Effective Trial Design Need Not Conflict With Good Patient Care,” American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2002): 25–26, at 26; Miller, F. G. Brody, H., “What Makes Placebo-Controlled Trials Unethical?” American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2002): 3–9, at 2–5; Emanuel, E. Miller, F. G., “The Ethics of Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Middle Ground,” N. Engl. J. Med., 345 (2001): 915–19; National Placebo Initiative, Health Canada & Canadian Institute of Health Research, Draft Report of the National Placebo Working Committee (October, 2004).Google Scholar

See Freedman, B. Glass, K. C. Weijer, C., supra note 7; Glass, K. C. Waring, D., supra note 6; Waring, D. Glass, K. C., “Legal Liability for Harm to Research Subjects in Placebo Controlled Trials” in New Directions in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest and Liability, Lemmens, T. Waring, D. (eds) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, in press).Google Scholar

We are aware of no such judgments. However, a Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial was filed in the Orange County, North Carolina Superior Court by a patient/plaintiff randomized to the placebo arm of a clinical trial testing a new psoriasis treatment. The plaintiff claimed damages for the development of debilitating psoriatic arthritis resulting from participation in the trial. The trial protocol required discontinuation of his current medication and withholding of the experimental drug. William Hamlet v. Genentech, Inc; Xoma, Ltd.; Western Institutional Review Board, Inc.; Parexel International, LLC; Mark. S. Fradin, M.D.; and Chapel Hill Dermatology, P.A., Superior Court of Justice, Superior Court division 03 CVS 1161, Orange County, North Carolina (July, 2003). Five of the six defendants have settled. Personal communication, Alan Milstein, attorney for the plaintiff, June 8, 2005.Google Scholar

Mello, M. M. Studdart, D. M. Brennan, T., “The Rise of Litigation in Human Subjects Research” Annals of Internal Medicine 139 (2003): 40–45.Google Scholar

Bok, , Universities in the Marketplace (NJ: Princeton, 2003): At 144–50; Glass, K. C. Lemmens, T. M., “Conflict of Interest and Commercialization of Biomedical Research: What is the Role of Research Ethics Review?” in Caulfield, T. Williams-Jones, B., eds., The Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues (New York: Plenum, 1999): 79–99 at 86–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobbs, D. B., The Law of Torts, vol. 1 (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 2001): At 269; Robertson, G., “Negligence and Malpractice,” in Downie, J. Caufield, T. Flood, C., eds., Canadian Health Law and Policy, 2d. ed. (Markham, Ontario: Butterworths Canada Ltd., 2002): 91–109, at 91; Jones, M. A., Medical Negligence (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1991): At 20; Giesen, D., International Medical Malpractice Law: A Comparative Law Study of Civil Liability Arising From Medical Care (Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1988): At 25, 30–31; King, J. H. Jr., The Law of Medical Malpractice in a Nutshell, 2d. ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1986): At 9.Google Scholar

Picard, E. I. Robertson, G. B., Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada, 3d. ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1996); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965).Google Scholar

Miller, Brody, , supra note 1, at 3–5; see also Emanuel, Miller, , supra note 7, at 915–19.Google Scholar

Picard, Robertson, , supra note 13, at 1–8.Google Scholar

American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Code of Medical Ethics, at <www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2498.html> (last visited June 22, 2005).+(last+visited+June+22,+2005).>Google Scholar

Id. at Article E-2.07, Clinical Investigation.Google Scholar

Declaration of Helsinki (Helsinki: World Medical Association, 52nd General Assembly, 2000).Google Scholar

Id. at Articles 3,5,10, and 15; see also Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1998): At i.4.Google Scholar

Hall v. Hilburn, 466 So. 2d 856, 858 (MS 1985).Google Scholar

Crits v. Sylvester, 1 D.L.R. (2d.) 502, 508, (1956), aff'd [1956] S.C.R. 991.Google Scholar

Picard, Robertson, , supra note 13, at 186.Google Scholar

Miller, Brody, , supra note 1, at 3–5; see also Emanuel, Miller, , supra note 7, at 915–19.Google Scholar

Giesen, , supra note 12, at 50.Google Scholar

Id. at 193–195.Google Scholar

Giesen, D., “Civil Liability of Physicians for New Methods of Treatment and Experimentation: A Comparative Examination,” Medical Law Review 3 (1995): 22–52, at 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morreim, E. H., “Medical Malpractice Litigation and Malpractice Tort Doctrines: Courts on a Learning Curve,” Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy 4 (2003): 1–92, at 92. Professor Morreim published a further iteration of these arguments in “Litigation in Clinical Research: Malpractice Doctrines Versus Research Realities,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32 no. 3 (2004): 474–484.Google Scholar

Id. at 34Google Scholar

Id. at 41.Google Scholar

Id. at 52.Google Scholar

Professor Morreim does allow in her discussion of fiduciary duties that there could be a relationship in a “pure research setting, in which the patient's only relationship with an investigator is as a research subject.” Id. at 50–51. We believe that this could only be the case for “patients” who are not seeking or needing care, e.g., recruitment of persons to donate blood for a study unrelated to their own care. This situation is easily distinguishable from one in which a patient seeks advice and care from a physician who is an investigator and is recruited into a trial for a therapy addressing the patient's needs, including those with a placebo control.Google Scholar

Freedman, B., “Equipoise and the Ethics of Clinical Research,” N. Engl. J. Med. 317 (1987): 141–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rodwin, M. A., “Strains in the Fiduciary Metaphor: Divided Physician Loyalties and Obligations in a Changing Health Care System,” American Journal of Law and Medicine 21 (1995): 241–57, at 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, M. A. Bobinski, M. A. Orentlicher, D., Health Care Law and Ethics, 6th ed. (New York: Aspen Publishers, 2003): At 163–64; Lockett v. Goodill, 430 P.2d 589, 591 (WA, 1967); Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (1990); McInerney v. MacDonald (1992) 93 D.L.R. (4th) 415; Norberg v. Wynrib, (1992) 2 S.C.R. 227; Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), (1993) 3 S.C.R. 519.Google Scholar

Hall, Bobinski, Orentlicher, , supra, at 163–64.Google Scholar

Prosser, W. L. Keeton, P., The Law of Torts, 5th ed. (St. Paul. MN: West Publishing Co, 1984).Google Scholar

Mehlman, M. J., “Fiduciary Contracting Limitations on Bargaining Between Patients and Health Care Providers,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 51 (1989–1990): 365–417, at 390.Google Scholar

Lockett v. Goodill, 430 P.2d 589, 591 (WA, 1967), as cited by Hall, Bobinski, Orenticher, , supra note 35.Google Scholar

Robertson, G., Negligence and Malpractice, in Downie, J. Caulfield, T. Flood, C., eds., Canadian Health Law and Policy, 2nd ed. (Markham, Ontario: Butterworths, 2002): 91–109; Morreim, , supra note 26, at 48; Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479, 483, 488 (1990). The Supreme Court of California has determined that an interest in research can conflict with an interest in the patient-participant's health and that a physician-investigator's eagerness to promote the advancement of science may result in riskier experimental treatments. The physician-investigator must disclose to a participant “any personal interests unrelated to the patient's health, whether research or economic, that may affect the physician's professional judgment.” An action for conversion was dismissed even though the physician converted the patient-participant's blood products into a marketable commodity without consent. But the action for breach of the fiduciary duty to disclose financial interests in the research was accepted.Google Scholar

Glass, Lemmens, , supra note 11.Google Scholar

Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, The Human Radiation Experiments (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

Gomez v. Comité exécutif du Conseil des médecins, dentistes et pharmaciens de l’Hôpital universitaire de Québec, (2001) J. Q. No. 5544. This was dealt with specifically by the Quebec Court of Appeal. At issue was a complaint filed with a university hospital medical disciplinary committee by the family of a man who died after participating in a research study on prostate cancer. The complainant argued that the patient/research subject had not received the proper standard of care, and that as a result of the negligence of the physicians involved in the research project, he had not been diagnosed in a timely fashion. The researchers argued that medical research escapes the traditional disciplinary rules of the profession and is only submitted to the authority of specialized research ethics committees. The Court stated that research is part of the mission of a university hospital; that in this type of research subjects could reasonably have expected diagnostic services and exceptional care; and that the terms “medical act” and “research” cannot be strictly separated. Discussing the latter, the Court points out that clinical research is an integral part of medicine, and is undertaken by physicians whose first professional duty is the protection of the health and well-being of individuals. Biomedical research and medical acts are not in opposition to one another, the Court states. In this court's view, research subjects can rightly expect that when research activities undertaken in medical research centers involve medical procedures, such as diagnostic services, the interventions they undergo will meet the standard of care physicians owe to their patients.Google Scholar

Giesen, , supra note 12, at 595–96, § 251.Google Scholar

Gilbert, P. L. Harris, J. et al., “Neuroleptic Withdrawal in Schizophrenic Patients,” Archives of General Psychiatry 52 (1995): 173–88, at 173, 175, 182–85; Spivak, B. et al., “Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome During Abrupt Reduction of Neuroleptic Treatment,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 81 (1990): 168–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Viguera, A. C. Baldessarini, R. J. et al., “Clinical Risk Following Abrupt and Gradual Withdrawal of Maintenance Neuroleptic Treatment,” Archives of General Psychiatry 54 (1997): 49–55, at 49–54.Google Scholar

Baldessarini, R. J. Viguera, A. C., “Medication Removal and Research in Psychotic Disorders,” Archives of General Psychiatry 55 (March, 1998): 281–82, at 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilbert, Harris, et al., supra note 46, at 182.Google Scholar

Wyatt, R. J., “Neuroleptics and the Natural Course of Schizophrenia,” Schizophrenia Bulletin 17 (1991): 325–51; Greden, J. F. Tandon, R., “Long-Term Treatment for Lifetime Disorders?” Archives of General Psychiatry 52 (1995): 197–99, at 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greden, Tandon, , supra, at 198.Google Scholar

Viguera, Baldessarini, supra note 47, at 51.Google Scholar

Greden, Tandon, , supra note 51, at 198; Elliott, C. Weijer, C., “Cruel and Unusual Treatment,” Saturday Night 110, no. 10 (1995): 31–34, at 32.Google Scholar

Greden, Tandon, , supra note 51, at 198. There is anecdotal evidence that details such as relapse rates have been kept out of the informed consent process because they were “overly frightening.” Put another way, such details might discourage enrollment in RCTs. The altruism that supposedly motivates some psychiatric patients to enroll in placebo-controlled trials may not endure an understanding of the potential for adverse effects. See also King, D., “Debatable Forms of Consent,” The Boston Globe, November 16, 1998, at A01. King quotes Wesley Acorn, then president of the national consumer council for the U.S. National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, as saying, “Do you think people say ‘Gee, I’ll sign up for more suffering. Many of us suffer enough on our own.’”Google Scholar

Baldessarini, Viguera, , supra note 46, at 282; Viguera, Baldessarini, et al., supra note 45, at 54; Baldessarini, R. J., “Risks and Implications of Interrupting Maintenance Psychotic Drug Therapy,” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatik 63 (1995): 137–41, at 139; Jeste, D. V. Gilbert, P. L. et al., “Considering Neuroleptic Maintenance and Taper on a Continuum,” Archives of General Psychiatry 52 (1995): 209–12, at 210; Wyatt, R., “Risks of Withdrawing Antipsychotic Medications,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 52 (1995): 205–08, at 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Viguera, A. C. Baldessarini, R. J. et al., supra note 47, at 50.Google Scholar

Carpenter, W. T. Coney, R., “Sense and Nonsense: An Essay on Schizophrenia Research Ethics,” Scizophrenia Research 35 (1999): 219–25, at 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, W. T. Appelbaum, P. S. Levine, R. J., “The Declaration of Helsinki and Clinical Trials: A Focus on Placebo-Controled Trials in Schizophrenia,” American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (2003): 356–62, at 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geddes, J. R. Carey, S. M. Davis, C. Furukawa, T. A. et al., “Relapse Prevention with Antidepressant Drug Treatment in Depressive Disorders: A Systematic Review,” The Lancet 361 (2003): 653–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pincus, T. Callahan, L. F., “The ‘Side Effects’ of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Joint Destruction, Disability and Early Mortality,” British Journal of Rheumatology 32, suppl. 1 (1993): 28–37; Wolfe, F. Cathey, M. A., “The Assessment and Prediction of Functional Disability in Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Journal of Rheumatology 18 (1991): 1298–1306; Reilly, P. A. Cosh, J. A. Maddison, P. J. Rasker, J. J. Silman, A., “Mortality and Survival in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A 25 Year Prospective Study of 100 Patients,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 49 (1990): 363–69.Google Scholar

Emery, P., “The Roche Rheumatology Prize Lecture: The Optimal Management of Early Rheumatoid Disease: The Key to Preventing Disability,” British Journal of Rheumatology 33 (1994): 765–68; Pincus, T. Callahan, L. E., “How Many Types of Patients Meet Classification Criteria for Rheumatoid Arthritis?” Rheumatology 21 (1994): 1385–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fries, J. F. Williams, C. A. Morfeld, D. Singh, G. Sibley, J., “Reduction in Long-Term Disability in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis by Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drug-Based Treatment Strategies,” Arthritis & Rheumatism 39 (1996): 616–22; Van Riel, P. L. van der Heijde, D. M. Nuver-Zwart, I. H. van de Putte, L. B., “Radiographic Progression in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of 3 Comparative Trials,” Journal of Rheumatology 22 (1995): 1797–99; Forre, O., “Radiologic Evidence of Disease Modification in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Cyclosporine: Results of a 48-week Multicenter Study Comparing Low-Dose Cyclosporine with Placebo: Norwegian Arthritis Study Group,” Arthritis & Rheumatism 37 (1994): 1506–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stern, C. M. Pincus, T., “Placebo-Controlled Studies in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Ethical Issues,” The Lancet 353 (1999): 400–03, at 400.Google Scholar

Id; Temple, Ellenberg, , supra note 5.Google Scholar

Lemmens, T. Sprumont, D. Nys, H. Singh, J. Glass, K. C., “CIOMS' Placebo Rule and the Promotion of Negligent Medical Practice,” European Journal of Health Law 11 (2004): 153–74, at 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neufield v. McQuitty, 18 AR 271(1979); Halushka v. University of Saskatchewan 53 D.L.R. (2d) 436 (1965); Cryderman v. Ringrose, 3 W.W.R. 481 (Alta. CA, 1977); Coughlin v. Kuntz 17 B.C.L.R. 365 (1987); Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q., 1991, Articles 1474, 1477; Grimes v. Kennedy Kreiger Institute, 782 A.2d 807, 834 (2001); Gomez v. Comité exécutif du Conseil des médecins, dentistes et pharmaciens de l’Hôpital universitaire de Québec, supra note 43.Google Scholar

Lemmens, T. et al., supra note 65.Google Scholar

Menikov, J., Law and Bioethics: An Introduction (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001).Google Scholar

Miller, Brody, , supra note 1.Google Scholar

Miller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar

Freedman, , supra note 34.Google Scholar

Freedman, B., “Ethics and Placebo-Controlled Thrombolytic Trials: The Future,” Coronary Artery Disease 2, no. 7 (1991): 849–52, at 850.Google Scholar

Weijer, C., “When Argument Fails,” American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2002): 10–11, at 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

The National Placebo Working Committee Report on the Appropriate Use of Placebo in Clinical Trials (Ottawa: Health Canada and Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2004).Google Scholar

Freedman, B. Glass, K. C. Weijer, C. supra note 7; Glass, K. C. Waring, D. supra note 7, at 26. Oberman, M., “Mothers and Doctor's Orders: Unmasking the Doctor's Fiduciary Role in Maternal-Fetal Conflicts,” Northwestern University Law Review 94 (2000): 451–501, at 459.Google Scholar