Articulation and transparency of decision-making by Human Research Ethics Committees.
In this paper, we argue that Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) have an obligation to clearly articulate, document and be accountable for the reasons for their decisions, and to make their documentation available for external scrutiny. We advance two arguments to support this claim. The first is that this is a legal obligation--that HRECs, by virtue of the way they are established under legislation, are required by law to provide statements of reasons. The second is an ethical argument--even if the legal argument is flawed, there are still compelling ethical reasons for HRECs to operate in this way. We then give an example of what a statement of reasons from an HREC might look like, and urge HRECs to consider whether their decision-making and documentation could meet this model.
Davies
Grant
G
Centre for Health and Society, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria.
Gillam
Lynn
L
D003657:Decision Making; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000592:standards; D006287:Health Planning Guidelines; D006801:Humans