Henry Beecher’s article - 1966 For

Henry Beecher’s article - 1966
For 20 years after the close of WW II, human experimentation in medical research expanded, long after the utilitarian wartime justification had ceased.1 But on June 16, 1966, an article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine that sent shock waves through the research and medical communities. The article, written by Harvard Medical School Professor of Anesthesiology Henry Beecher, MD, was titled "Ethics and Clinical Research." Beecher was concerned that the enormous amount of funds available for research, combined with the pressures on physicians in medical schools to conduct research in order to be promoted, could lead to a "separation between the interests of science and the interests of the patient."12 His article detailed 22 examples of unethical experiments done between 1948 and 1965 on subjects without their understanding of the consequences and without their consent.12 In Example 16, hepatitis virus was purposely fed to retarded children at an institution for mentally defective children, and in Example 17, live cancer cells were injected into 22 senile and demented hospitalized patients. Other researchers severely reduced the blood pressures of patients to study mental confusion (Example 8), performed thymectomies on children undergoing heart operations to study growth and development (Example 6), and sutured mercury-filled resistance gauges to the left ventricles of 30 adult patients with atrial fibrillation and mitral stenosis to study their heart output per beat (Example 10).12 Beecher’s examples were funded by the NIH, the U.S. military, foundations, and private drug companies and were carried out by leading university medical schools, including Harvard Medical School, Georgetown University, UCLA, Northwestern, and Duke. The physicians were research fellows in medicine and surgery, and two were professors; a number of them went on to become the chairs of departments and win prestigious awards.1 Saul Krugman, MD, who had purposely infected mentally retarded children with hepatitis at Willowbrook State School for the Retarded (Example 16), in 1972 became the chair of the pediatrics department at New York University and won a prestigious prize for research in 1983. Krugman, as well as other researchers, were heirs to the wartime utilitarian mind-set of sacrificing the few for the greater good. The motivation behind his research was the conviction that he could do more good for more people if he found a cure for hepatitis.1 The subjects of the research in Beecher’s examples were all marginalized members of society: the poor, the developmentally disabled, senile, and institutionalized; those who lacked the ability or opportunity to exercise choice.12 Some of Beecher’s colleagues had a less than friendly response to his article, one denouncing him as a “dangerous exaggerator.”1 But stories in the New York Times and other newspapers about Beecher’s article aroused horror in the public. The NIH, the most important source of funds for experimentation, was subordinate to Congress and had already begun to move to regulate human experimentation.1 On July 1, 1966, the NIH created guidelines covering federally funded research on human experimentation. The guidelines mandated that institutions receiving funds create a committee of associates not connected to the project to review the judgment of the investigator and to keep documentation of informed consent. The groups, which came to be known as institutional review boards (IRBs), were charged with reviewing the potential risks and benefits of the research, and the methods used to obtain patient consent. The members of the IRBs were largely other research physicians, though a few included lawyers and clergy. Research was no longer at the discretion of individual investigators; for the first time, researchers had to answer to federal regulations and compulsory peer review.1 Also in the wake of Beecher’s article, the FDA issued rules regarding consent in clinical drug trials. Its Statement on Policy Concerning Consent for the Use of Investigational New Drugs on Humans was released in August 1966.1 

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Bài viết của Henry Beecher - 1966 For 20 years after the close of WW II, human experimentation in medical research expanded, long after the utilitarian wartime justification had ceased.1 But on June 16, 1966, an article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine that sent shock waves through the research and medical communities. The article, written by Harvard Medical School Professor of Anesthesiology Henry Beecher, MD, was titled "Ethics and Clinical Research." Beecher was concerned that the enormous amount of funds available for research, combined with the pressures on physicians in medical schools to conduct research in order to be promoted, could lead to a "separation between the interests of science and the interests of the patient."12 His article detailed 22 examples of unethical experiments done between 1948 and 1965 on subjects without their understanding of the consequences and without their consent.12 In Example 16, hepatitis virus was purposely fed to retarded children at an institution for mentally defective children, and in Example 17, live cancer cells were injected into 22 senile and demented hospitalized patients. Other researchers severely reduced the blood pressures of patients to study mental confusion (Example 8), performed thymectomies on children undergoing heart operations to study growth and development (Example 6), and sutured mercury-filled resistance gauges to the left ventricles of 30 adult patients with atrial fibrillation and mitral stenosis to study their heart output per beat (Example 10).12 Beecher’s examples were funded by the NIH, the U.S. military, foundations, and private drug companies and were carried out by leading university medical schools, including Harvard Medical School, Georgetown University, UCLA, Northwestern, and Duke. The physicians were research fellows in medicine and surgery, and two were professors; a number of them went on to become the chairs of departments and win prestigious awards.1 Saul Krugman, MD, who had purposely infected mentally retarded children with hepatitis at Willowbrook State School for the Retarded (Example 16), in 1972 became the chair of the pediatrics department at New York University and won a prestigious prize for research in 1983. Krugman, as well as other researchers, were heirs to the wartime utilitarian mind-set of sacrificing the few for the greater good. The motivation behind his research was the conviction that he could do more good for more people if he found a cure for hepatitis.1 The subjects of the research in Beecher’s examples were all marginalized members of society: the poor, the developmentally disabled, senile, and institutionalized; those who lacked the ability or opportunity to exercise choice.12 Some of Beecher’s colleagues had a less than friendly response to his article, one denouncing him as a “dangerous exaggerator.”1 But stories in the New York Times and other newspapers about Beecher’s article aroused horror in the public. The NIH, the most important source of funds for experimentation, was subordinate to Congress and had already begun to move to regulate human experimentation.1 On July 1, 1966, the NIH created guidelines covering federally funded research on human experimentation. The guidelines mandated that institutions receiving funds create a committee of associates not connected to the project to review the judgment of the investigator and to keep documentation of informed consent. The groups, which came to be known as institutional review boards (IRBs), were charged with reviewing the potential risks and benefits of the research, and the methods used to obtain patient consent. The members of the IRBs were largely other research physicians, though a few included lawyers and clergy. Research was no longer at the discretion of individual investigators; for the first time, researchers had to answer to federal regulations and compulsory peer review.1 Also in the wake of Beecher’s article, the FDA issued rules regarding consent in clinical drug trials. Its Statement on Policy Concerning Consent for the Use of Investigational New Drugs on Humans was released in August 1966.1