Skip to main content
Log in

Has Emergency Medicine Research Benefited Patients? An Ethical Question

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From an ethical standpoint, the goal of clinical research is to benefit patients. While individual investigations may not yield results that directly improve patients’ evaluation or treatment, the corpus of the research should lead in that direction. Without the goal of ultimate benefit to patients, such research fails as a moral enterprise. While this may seem obvious, the need to protect and benefit patients can get lost in the milieu of clinical research.

Many advances in emergency medicine have been based upon the results of research studies conducted both within the specialty and by others outside of the field. But has this research benefited patients? Has it followed the Hippocratic commitment “to do good or at least do no harm”? The answer is: yes, and no. This paper attempts to demonstrate this: first by citing advances from applied research that have benefited emergency department patients over the past three decades, and follows with some aspects of emergency medicine research that makes one question both its safety and its efficacy. While enormous gains have been made in patient care as a result of emergency medical research, ethical considerations complicate this rosy picture, and point to future areas of concern for researchers.

Some aspects of clinical research and research oversight fall short of meeting the ethical standards of safety and patient benefit. Research agendas are still driven largely by the availability of funds, both from private industry and from government agencies. Many vital patient groups are harmed by omitting or sorely under-representing them as research subjects, most notably those that are critically ill and injured. Finally, questions still arise about clinical researchers’ fiduciary responsibility to their subject-patients. Even more important than the institutional safeguards, such as the Institutional Review Boards, is the individual researcher’s moral compass, which must serve to protect the subject-patients of clinical research.

Overall, emergency medicine research has been and continues to be a moral endeavor. Perhaps the greatest moral lapse has been the lack of attention to key populations within emergency medicine research, and the patients most needing acute intervention are the ones who suffer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Spivey, W. H., Abramson, N. S., Iserson, K. V., et al. (1991). Informed consent for biomedical research in acute care medicine. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 20, 1251–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Reiser, S. J., Dyck, A. J., & Curran, W. J. (Eds.) (1978). Ethics in medicine: Selections from the hippocratic corpus (p. 7). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wilkins, E. W. (Ed.) (1978). MGH textbook of emergency medicine. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mueller, G. L., Burney, R. E., & Mackenzie, J. R. (1981). Sequential peritoneal lavage and early diagnosis of colon perforation. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 10, 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Moore, J. B., Moore, E. E., Markovchick, V., & Rosen, P. (1981). Peritoneal lavage in abdominal trauma: A prospective study comparing the peritoneal dialysis catheter with the intracatheter. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 9, 190–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brenner, P. F., Roy, S., & Mishell, D. R. (1980). Ectopic pregnancy: A study of 300 consecutive surgically treated cases. JAMA, 243, 673–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Seager, S. B. (1980). Cardiac enzymes in the evaluation of chest pain. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 9, 346–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown, D. L., & Skiendzielewski, J. J. (1980). Lidocaine toxicity. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 9, 627–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rothstein, R. J. (1980). Intravenous theophylline therapy in asthma: A clinical update. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 9, 327–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gotz, V. P., Brandstetter, R. D., & Mar, D. D. (1981). Bronchodilatory effect of subcutaneous epinephrine in acute asthma. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 10, 518–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barker, L. R., Slosberg, B., & Stine, R. J. (1980). Hypertension: Spectrum of problems and guidelines for management. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 9, 196–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. American College of Emergency Physicians. (1980). Evaluation of an EMS algorithm system. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 9, 534–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Freedman, B. (1987). Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 317, 141–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hurlbert, R. J. (2000). Methylprednisolone for acute spinal cord injury: An inappropriate standard of care. Journal of Neurosurgery, 93, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Horowitz, B. Z., Bizovi, K., & Raymond Moreno, R. (2002). Droperidol—behind the black box warning. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(6), 615–618.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Iserson, K. V., & Mahowald, M. B. (1992). Acute care research: Is it ethical? Critical Care Medicine, 20(7), 1032–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Morris, M. C. (2005). An ethical analysis of exception from informed consent regulations. Academic Emergency Medicine, 12, 1113–1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stein, R. (2007). Critical care without consent. Washington Post, 27, A01.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Iserson, K. V., & Lindsey, D. (1995). Research on critically ill and injured patients: Rules, reality, and ethics. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 13, 563–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth V. Iserson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iserson, K.V. Has Emergency Medicine Research Benefited Patients? An Ethical Question. Sci Eng Ethics 13, 289–295 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9025-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9025-6

Keywords

Navigation