Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Legal Distinctions between Clinical Research and Clinical Investigation:Lessons from a Professional Misconduct Trial

Legal Distinctions between Clinical Research and Clinical Investigation:Lessons from a... A senior Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London was accused of professional misconduct and ordered to be erased from the U.K. medical register following a fitness to practice trial by the General Medical Council (GMC). He was charged with performing clinical research without ethical approval. The Defendant claimed his actions were based on clinical need to investigate his patients’ atypical symptoms and signs. Flaws are described in the trial that favoured the GMC to win the case after five years of trial. These included lack of impartiality, bias against the Defendant’s Expert Witness, restricted access to evidence and unwarranted time delays. At Appeal before the High Courts in London the charges and sanctions by the GMC were quashed within four days of public hearings. The difficulty of defining clinical research as distinct from clinical investigation of patients is discussed with reference to the GMC trial and subsequent ruling by the High Courts. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Philosophy Study Science and Engineering Publishing Company

Legal Distinctions between Clinical Research and Clinical Investigation:Lessons from a Professional Misconduct Trial

Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/science-and-engineering-publishing-company/legal-distinctions-between-clinical-research-and-clinical-oRNh0Fb0ae
Publisher
Science and Engineering Publishing Company
Copyright
Science and Engineering Publishing Company
ISSN
2328-1707
eISSN
2328-1634

Abstract

A senior Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London was accused of professional misconduct and ordered to be erased from the U.K. medical register following a fitness to practice trial by the General Medical Council (GMC). He was charged with performing clinical research without ethical approval. The Defendant claimed his actions were based on clinical need to investigate his patients’ atypical symptoms and signs. Flaws are described in the trial that favoured the GMC to win the case after five years of trial. These included lack of impartiality, bias against the Defendant’s Expert Witness, restricted access to evidence and unwarranted time delays. At Appeal before the High Courts in London the charges and sanctions by the GMC were quashed within four days of public hearings. The difficulty of defining clinical research as distinct from clinical investigation of patients is discussed with reference to the GMC trial and subsequent ruling by the High Courts.

Journal

International Journal of Philosophy Study – Science and Engineering Publishing Company

Published: Jul 1, 2013

Keywords: Law, General Medical Council UK, Ethics of Clinical Research, Clinical Investigation

There are no references for this article.