Abstract
The author is one of the medical advisers to the judge who led a government inquiry into allegations that an experimental research program at the National Women's Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand, to study the natural course of cervical carcinoma in situ had withheld conventional treatment from some patients. She argues that the research proposal should not have been approved at the outset, that consent should have been sought from the patients, that the study was not monitored adequately, and that the concerns of other doctors were not acted on. The reasons for this failure to protect the safety of patients go beyond the individual researcher and must be sought in the attitudes of doctors to science, to accountability, and perhaps to women.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
