Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:19:19.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controversial Issues in the History of Dutch Research Ethics Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2011

Patricia Jaspers
Patricia Jaspers*
Affiliation:
Maastricht University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 74 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Donald Critchlow and Cambridge University Press 2011

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. Borst-Eilers, E., “Een welkome handleiding voor de toetsing van medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen” [A welcome handbook for review of medical scientific research with human beings], Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 147 (2003): 898–900Google Scholar; Wet Medisch-wetenschappelijk Onderzoek met Mensen (WMO) [Dutch law on research with human beings] (The Hague, 1998), 161.

2. Centrale Commissie voor Medisch-wetenschappelijk Onderzoek met mensen [Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects] (CCMO), Op weg … , Eerste rapportage taakvervulling CCMO, periode 1999–2003 [Moving on … first evaluation report, 1999–2003] (The Hague, 2003), 10.

3. CCMO, Annual Report, 1999–2000 (The Hague, 2001), 7.Google Scholar

4. Donagan, Alan, “Determinism in History,” Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, ed. Weiner, Philip P. (New York, 1973), vol. 2, 18–21.Google Scholar

5. Bergmann, Gustav, Philosophy of Science (Madison, 1957).Google Scholar

6. Griffiths, John, “Self-Regulation by the Dutch Medical Profession of Medical Behavior That Potentially Shortens Life,” in Regulating Morality: A Comparison of the Role of the State in Mastering the Mores in the Netherlands and the United States, ed. Krabbendam, Hans and ten Napel, Hans-Martien (Antwerp/Apeldoorn, 2000), 173–90.Google Scholar

7. Horstman, K. and de Vries, G., “Experimenten met mensen: De constitutie van een medisch-wetenschappelijke praktijk en een ethisch probleem (Nederland, 1870–1915),” [Experiments with human beings: The constitution of a medical scientific practice and an ethical problem (Netherlands, 1870–1915)], Kennis en Methode 1 (1989): 62–83.Google Scholar

8. Marks, Harry M., The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900–1990 (New York, 1997).Google Scholar

9. Cohen, E. A., “Medische experimenten op mensenm” [Medical experiments with human beings], Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 96 (1952): 2505.Google Scholar

10. Bergkamp, L., Het Proefdier Mens: De Normering en regulering van medische experimenten met mensen [The human guinea pig: The standardization and regulation of medical experiments with human beings] (Alphen aan de Rijn, 1988)Google Scholar; Bergkamp, L., “IRBs and Dutch Research Ethics Committees: How They Compare,” IRB: Ethics and Human Research 10 (1988): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Huddleston-Slater, W. B., “Wetenschap en Proeven op Mensen” [Science and testing on humans] (letter to the editor), Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 92 (1948): 1183.Google Scholar

12. Meyler, L., “Proeven op mensen” [Testing on humans], Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 101 (1957): 1454.Google Scholar

13. Fokkens, W., “Geoorloofd Experiment?” [Permissible experiment?], Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 101 (1957): 1628.Google Scholar

14. Borst, J. G. G.(untitled letter; reply to Fokkens), Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 101 (1957): 1628–29.Google Scholar

15. Prakken, J. R., “De dokter tussen de industrie en de patiënt” [The doctor between industry and the patient] Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 101 (1957): 2373–75.Google Scholar

16. Report on the 36th Meeting of the Dutch Lower House, 14 December 1955.

17. Health Council, Report of meeting on Testing on Humans, no. 15/8 (The Hague, 10 October 1955), 1.

18. Ibid.

19. Van den Berg, J. H., Medische macht en medische ethiek [Medical power and medical ethics] (Nijkerk, 1969).Google Scholar

20. Kater, L., Houtepen, R., De Vries, R., and Widdershoven, G., “Health Care Ethics and Health Law in the Dutch Discussion on End-of-Life Decisions: A Historical Analysis of the Dynamics and Development of Both Disciplines,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 34 (2003): 669–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. G. A. Lindeboom, “Geneeskundige Proeven op Mensen” [Medical testing on humans], paper presented at the 39th scientific meeting of the Free University of Amsterdam (Assen, 1957), 4.

22. Griffiths, John, Bood, Alex, and Weyers, Heleen, Euthanasia and Law in the Netherlands (Amsterdam, 1998), 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Griffiths, “Self-Regulation.”

24. The, Anne-Mei, Verlossers naast God: Dokters en euthanasia in Nederland [Saviors next to God: Physicians and euthanasia in the Netherlands] (Amsterdam, 2009), 140.Google Scholar

25. The, Verlossers naast God, 141.

26. Weyers, Heleen, Euthanasie: Het proces van rechtsverandering [Euthanasia: The process of legal change] (Amsterdam, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Dute, J., Friele, R. D., Nys, H., Op den Drink, V. A. J., Van Gils, R. C. W., Eysink, P. E. D., and Hanssen, J. E., Evaluatie wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen [Evaluation of the Dutch law on research with human beings], Series of Law Evaluation 17 (The Hague, 2004): 12.Google Scholar

28. E. L. Noach, “Verschuivende normen in de Medische Ethiek” [Shifting norms in medical ethics], Lecture HOVO Courses 1989–99, University of Leiden, 3.

29. World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki, 1st (Tokyo) amendment, 1975.

30. Bergkamp, “IRBs and Dutch Research Ethics Committees,” 1.

31. Leenen, H. J. J., “Juridische aspecten van medische experimenten op de mens (I and II),” [Legal aspects of medical experiments with human beings], Medisch Contact 30 (1975): 746–50, 763–76.Google Scholar

32. Bergkamp, “IRBs and Dutch Research Ethics Committees,” 2.

33. Dutch Lower Chamber, Appendix Actions II 1974/75, no. 1690, p. 1307.

34. Bins, J. W., “Experimenten met Mensen: Een verdwenen Advies” [Experiments with human beings: A vanished report], Medisch Contact 38 (1983): 97–98.Google Scholar

35. Visser, M. B. H., “Ethische aspecten van medische experimenten op mensen” [Ethical aspects of medical experiments on human beings] (I), Medisch Contact 34 (1979): 1352.Google Scholar

36. College van Advies en Bijstand inzake Levensbeschouwelijke Aangelegenheden (CABLA), Experimentele behandelingen en experimenten met mensen: Een discussienota over de inhoudelijke achtergronden en het beleid in instellingen voor gezondheidszorg (Utrecht, 1984).Google Scholar

37. Beaufort, Inez de, Ethiek en medische experimenten met mensen [Ethics and medical experiments on human beings] (Assen, 1985), 186.Google Scholar

38. Bergkamp, Proefdier mens, 291.

39. Ziekenfondsraad, Besluit Eisen voor erkenning Ziekenhuizen [Decree on requirements for the accreditation of hospitals] (Amstelveen, 1984), 234.

40. Bergkamp, Proefdier mens, 191.

41. Noach, E. L., “De functie van Ethische Commissies bij Medische Experimenten met Mensen” [The role of ethics committees in medical experiments with human beings], Medisch Contact 40 (1985): 874.Google Scholar

42. Geuns, H. A., “Het staatstoezicht en medische experimenten op mensen” [State control and medical experiments with human beings] Medisch Contact 40 (1985): 801–2.Google Scholar

43. National Council for Public Health [Nationale Raad voor de Volksgezondheid], Decree on the Human Experimentation Bill, Report of the 94th meeting of the Fixed Committee for Public Health (Zoetermeer: Nationale Raad voor de Volksgezondheid, 14 May 1984), 94–13.

44. Report of the 33d meeting of the Fixed Committee for Public Health, 27 February 1989.

45. Chamber Report of the Meeting between the Fixed Committee for Public Health and the State Secretary of Welfare, Public Health and Sports, 19 May 1988, report 20 200, XVI, no. 97.

46. Van Wijmen, F. C. B., “Het Nederlandse wetsvoorstel inzake medische experimenten” [The Dutch bill on medical experimentation], Vlaams Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht 13 (1992): 86.Google Scholar

47. Berghmans, R. L. P., ter Meulen, R. H. J., and de Wachter, M. A. M., “Medisch-ethische toetsing van geneesmiddelenonderzoek in Nederland” [Medical ethical review of drug research in the Netherlands], Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde en Ethiek 7 (1997): 25–27.Google Scholar

48. Dute, Evaluatie wet medisch-wetenschappelijk, 14.

49. CCMO, Evaluation Report, 1999–2003.

50. Van Agt, F. M., Jensma-Nieuwpoort, A. C. B., Loonen, A. J. M., Oomen, J. P. C. M., Wagenborg, J. E. A., and Scholten, E. G.(Dutch Association of Medical Research Ethics Committees—NVMETC), “Vrijheid aan banden: Decentrale toetsing van geneesmiddelenonderzoek is in gevaar” [Restricted autonomy: Decentralized review of drug research endangered], Medisch Contact 24 (2003): 988.Google Scholar

51. Van Gemund, N., Van Roosmalen, J., and Schagen van Le, J., “Remmende wetgeving—WMO bemoeilijkt Multi-center onderzoek” [Restraining legislation—WMO hinders multicenter research], Medisch Contact 10 (2002)Google Scholar; Kemp, M. S. F., “Ethische toetsing van Mensgebonden onderzoek: Lokale commissies blijven belangrijk” [Review of human research: Local committees remain important], Medisch Contact 47 (2002)Google Scholar; Oòms, E. A., Ansink, A. C., and Burger, C. W., “Mensgebonden onderzoek traag op gang” [Research with human beings: A slow start] Medisch Contact 61 (2006): 803–5.Google Scholar

52. Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, External Review Directive (The Hague, 2004), www.ccmo-online.nl/ (accessed 2 August 2010).Google Scholar

53. Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, “Letter on Who does What?” (2009), www.ccmo-online.nl/ (accessed 16 May 2010).

54. “Nieuwe vereniging wil deskundigheid leden van medisch-ethische commissies vergroten” [New association wants to increase expertise of MREC members], Medisch Contact 47 (1991): 1409–10.Google Scholar

55. Vandenbroucke, J. P., “Medische ethiek en gezondheidsrecht: Hinderpalen voor de verdere toename van kennis in de geneeskunde” [Medical ethics and health law: Obstacles for increase in medical knowledge], NTvG 134 (1990): 5–6.Google Scholar

56. W. Allaertz, “Federatie bestaat al 40 jaar” [The federation has been around forty years], 1999, http://www.federa.org/?s=1&m=97 (accessed 16 May 2010).

57. Welie, S. P. K., and Blomert, L. et al. , “De WMO en het wetenschappelijk onderzoek in de Psychologie” [The WMO and scientific research in psychology], De Psychology 39 (2004): 268–74.Google Scholar

58. Maastricht University, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, “Notitie beoordelingskader Ethische Commissie Psychologie: Schiftings- en beoordelingscriteria” [Memo review framework Ethics Committee Psychology] www.psychology.unimaas.nl/ (accessed 5 May 2010).

59. Welie and Blomert et al., “WMO en het wetenschappelijk onderzoek.”

60. Nederlandse Vereniging voor Medische Onderwijs [Dutch Association of Medical Education]: http://www.geneeskunde-utrecht.nl/nvmoerb (accessed 18 October 2010).

61. CCMO, Annual Report, 1999–2000, 7.

62. Dute, J.; Friele, R. D.; Nys, H.; Op den Drink, V. A. J.; Van Gils, R. C. W.; Eysink, P. E. D.; and Hanssen, J. E., Evaluatie wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen [Evaluation of the Dutch law on research with human beings], Series of Law Evaluation 17 (The Hague, 2004).Google Scholar

63. CCMO, Definition of Medical Research (The Hague, 2005), 1999–2000, 7.Google Scholar

64. van Veen, E. B. and Janssen, I., Toetsing op Maat [Tailor-made review] (The Hague, 2008).Google Scholar