Log in with your email address username.

×

Important notice

doctorportal Learning is on the move as we will be launching a new website very shortly. If you would like to sign up to dp Learning now to register for CPD learning or to use our CPD tracker, please email support@doctorportal.com.au so we can assist you. If you are already signed up to doctorportal Learning, your login will work in the new site so you can continue to enrol for learning, complete an online module, or access your CPD tracker report.

To access and/or sign up for other resources such as Jobs Board, Bookshop or InSight+, please go to www.mja.com.au, or click the relevant menu item and you will be redirected.

All other doctorportal services, such as Find A Doctor, are no longer available.

Double standards in clinical practice ethics

- Featured Image

Is the researcher held to a higher standard than the clinician?

Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are now firmly entrenched in the research environment. Clinical research, including quality improvement activities, can only be performed and published with HREC approval. Clinical practice, however, is not subject to such approval, yet the risk of harm (to the individual and to society) from clinical practice may be considerable.1 Are researchers being held to a higher standard than clinicians? Has our concentration on ethical standards for clinical research led to an ethical blind spot for clinical practice?

Instances of research-related harm led to the development of ethics committees.2 Rightly, such committees have considerable control over research. However, this control does not extend to clinical practice ethics at their institutions.

Systematic follow-up of treated patients (research) needs ethics approval, yet clinicians can use new techniques and new prostheses (practice) without such approval, provided they do not wish to publish their results. Researchers cannot seek…

email