Abstract:Aims and background: The mission of physicians and the purpose of clinical research may give rise to a conflict between medical ethics and human rights. All the recommendations, directives and laws regarding experimental interventions require a formal protocol, approval from an ethics committee (EC), and written informed consent from potential participants. In Italy new guidelines on handling submissions to EC were published in 1998. One year later, there was a feeling among people involved in EC activities that the immediate impact of the new rules (ie, decentralization and emphasis on pharmacological aspects of the studies) was negative. A prospective study was launched to evaluate oncologists' opinions on Italian EC functioning. Methods and study design: A questionnaire was administered twice to 110 oncologists involved in two multicenter trials. Nine questions were included regarding the following aspects: presence of an EC at hospital level, personal experience with an EC, average time required for the evaluation of proposals submitted, and level of satisfaction with important functions of the EC. Results: Responses were received from 93 (first survey) and 69 (second survey) clinicians. In both surveys clinicians reported they were satisfied with the scientific and ethical aspects of EC functioning but dissatisfied with educational activities and training as well as bureaucratic and clerical requirements. At the second survey, the mean time required for evaluation after the submission of a study protocol was about 2.4 months and the level of dissatisfaction was still high for some critical aspects such as bureaucracy (44%) and educational activities and training (64%). Analysis of the change over time documented small differences (from -8% to +7%) in all aspects evaluated. Conclusions: Despite the limitations of the present study, ie, the small sample size and the intrinsic characteristics of the Italian setting, the findings add empirical evidence regarding the functioning of local EC and clinical researchers' opinions. This experience confirms that empirical studies on medical ethics are feasible and may produce useful information to facilitate the implementation of EC in the medical and lay community.

The role of institutional ethics committees in Austria

[Ethics committees in security-relevant research according to the recommendations of Leopoldina and the German Research Foundation]

Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues

Clinical forensic imaging and fundamental rights in Austria

[Emerging ethical issues in clinical practice: a regional survey]

International scope of biomedical research ethics review

No common understanding of profession terms utilized in health services research : An add-on qualitative study in the context of the QUALICOPC project in Austria

Special Issue: Why Ethically Reflect on Empirical Studies in Empirical Ethics? Case Studies and Commentaries

Regulation (EU) 536/2014 and the role of ethics committees: a proposal for a review system model

Hospital physician payment mechanisms in Austria: do they provide gateways to institutional corruption?

Ethics committees in Italy: a survey on a sample of oncologists

Implementation of an Ethics Committee in a University Mental Health Clinic

The Landsteiner lung cancer research platform (LALUCA)

A cross-sectional study: Need of equal respect for all professionals in the Institutional Ethics Committees' composition

Ethical and legal considerations in non interventional health clinical trials in the French context

Informed consent and ethics committee approval in laboratory medicine

The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study

Interdisciplinary Animal Research Ethics-Challenges, Opportunities, and Perspectives

Ethics approval: responsibilities of journal editors, authors and research ethics committees

Managing conflicting ethical concerns in modern small animal practice—A comparative study of veterinarian’s decision ethics in Austria, Denmark and the UK

Ethical and research governance approval across Europe: Experiences from three European palliative care studies