freedom to be altruistic (Canada)

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

freedom to be altruistic (Canada)

Postby Cece » Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:51 pm

Open Medicine, Vol 5, No 1 (2011)
Home > Vol 5, No 1 (2011) > Arenson

Freedom to be altruistic: allowing for risk/knowledge ratios in decisions concerning multiple sclerosis research

Kenneth Arenson
Kenneth Arenson practices law in Toronto.

In their thoughtful criticism of the conclusion by a joint panel of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society of Canada concerning Dr. Paolo Zamboni’s “liberation procedure” for chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI), Dr. Andreas Laupacis and Dr. Arthur Slutsky missed an important public policy point: there is an additional, little-developed freedom involved in patient autonomy in Canadian law, which is the other face of the coin of informed consent. Note that I speak of a coin of freedom, not of right. If there is a right, someone is under a duty, and there is no duty on anyone to conduct studies of the liberation procedure. The court would reject a claim for an order against researchers or institutions that such a study be done. The correlative of a freedom—the classic example is the freedom to walk in a public park—is that no one has the right to object. The legal philosophers call this a “no-right” to distinguish it from a duty. In the case we are considering, no researcher has the legal right to omit obtaining informed consent when signing up subjects (indeed, this side of the coin is now treated as a duty of disclosure when the researcher is embarked on a study and is recruiting subjects); similarly, for the obverse of the freedom coin in question, for patients satisfying the requirements for enrolment in a study of the liberation procedure, no researcher has the right to refuse those who choose to participate, as argued below.
Family Elder
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm


Postby Blaze » Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:35 pm

Great find Cece! This is in response to an earlier article in Open Medicine: - Cached

Dr. Andreas Laupacis, one of the co-authors of the earlier article which criticized the CIHR panel as being flawed, is on the Ontario panel looking into follow-up care. He is the only bright spot on that panel.

To have a lawyer write the follow-up article in a medical journal gives me hope. Both articles deal with studies, rather than treatment, but they still both strongly support patient rights
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service