UK Donation Ethics Committee Response to the New South Wales Consultation on Ante-Mortem Interventions for Organ Donation

Ethics and Australian mammalogy: reflections on 15 years (1991 - 2006) on an Animal Ethics Committee

Australian Mammalogy ◽

10.1071/am10010 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 34 (1) ◽

pp. 1 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Daniel Lunney

Keyword(s):

Animal Welfare ◽

Animal Rights ◽

Animal Ethics ◽

New South ◽

New South Wales ◽

Ethics Committees ◽

Ethics Committee ◽

Animal Research ◽

Animal Protection ◽

South Wales

This essay on field mammalogy and research ethics presents my reflections on 15 years as a researcher sitting on an Animal Ethics Committee in New South Wales. It outlines the community debate on animal welfare and the ethics of research on animals, how government has responded, and how wildlife researchers can move forward in this arena. Three schools are identified within the animal protection movement: ‘animal welfare’ holds that it is legitimate to use animals as a resource, so long as that use is ‘necessary’ and the animal’s suffering ‘minimised’; ‘animal liberationists’ are likely to oppose most animal research; the ‘animal rights’ position is firmly abolitionist. The instruments that regulate research involving animals are examined, in particular the New South Wales Animal Research Act 1985, the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, and Animal Ethics Committees. Examples of ethical dilemmas involving both native and non-native animals are discussed. The debate over animals in research will continue, and it is clear that far more can be gained by engaging in the debate than avoiding it. It is in researchers’ interests to publicly defend the essential role of science in conserving our native fauna, and to conduct our work within a well managed welfare framework.

Download Full-text

Assessment of the societal and individual preferences for fertility treatment in Australia: study protocol for stated preference discrete choice experiments

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020509 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. e020509 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Willings Botha ◽

Natasha Donnolley ◽

Marian Shanahan ◽

Georgina M Chambers

Keyword(s):

General Population ◽

Discrete Choice ◽

Stated Preference ◽

New South ◽

New South Wales ◽

Ethics Committee ◽

Fertility Treatment ◽

Individual Preferences ◽

South Wales ◽

The University

IntroductionIn Australia, societal and individual preferences for funding fertility treatment remain largely unknown. This has resulted in a lack of evidence about willingness to pay (WTP) for fertility treatment by either the general population (the funders) or infertile individuals (who directly benefit). Using a stated preference discrete choice experiment (SPDCE) approach has been suggested as a more appropriate method to inform economic evaluations of fertility treatment. We outline the protocol for an ongoing study which aims to assess fertility treatment preferences of both the general population and infertile individuals, and indirectly estimate their WTP for fertility treatment.Methods and analysisTwo separate but related SPDCEs will be conducted for two population samples—the general population and infertile individuals—to elicit preferences for fertility treatment to indirectly estimate WTP. We describe the qualitative work to be undertaken to design the SPDCEs. We will use D-efficient fractional experimental designs informed by prior coefficients from the pilot surveys. The mode of administration for the SPDCE is also discussed. The final results will be analysed using mixed logit or latent class model.Ethics and disseminationThis study is being funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant AP1104543 and has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC 17255) and a fertility clinic’s ethics committee. Findings of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at various conferences. A lay summary of the results will be made publicly available on the University of New South Wales National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit website. Our results will contribute to the development of an evidence-based policy framework for the provision of cost-effective and patient-centred fertility treatment in Australia.

Download Full-text

Assessing societal and offender perspectives on the value of offender healthcare: a stated preference research protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024899 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e024899

Author(s):

Stella Nalukwago Settumba ◽

Marian Shanahan ◽

Georgina, M Chambers ◽

Peter Schofield ◽

Tony Butler

Keyword(s):

Stated Preference ◽

New South ◽

New South Wales ◽

Aboriginal Health ◽

Ethics Committee ◽

Violent Offender ◽

Offender Treatment ◽

Human Research Ethics ◽

South Wales ◽

Economic Methods

IntroductionThe increasing burden that offenders place on justice and health budgets necessitates better methods to determine the benefits of and value society places on offender programmes to guide policy regarding resource allocation. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how economic methods will be used to determine the strength of preferences and value of violent offender treatment programmes from the perspectives of offenders, their families and the general population.Methods and analysisTwo stated preference economic methods, discrete choice experiment (DCE) and contingent valuation (CV), will be used to assess society’s and offenders' value of treatment programmes. The mixed methods process involves a literature review and qualitative methods to derive attributes and levels for the DCE and payment card values for the CV. Consensus building approaches of voting, ranking and the Delphi method will be used to further refine the findings from the qualitative phase. Attributes and their levels will be used in a D-efficient Bayesian experimental design to derive choice scenarios for the development of a questionnaire that will also include CV questions. Finally, quantitative surveys to assess societal preferences and value in terms of willingness to pay will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this study was obtained from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Human Research Ethics Committee, Corrective Services New South Wales Ethics Committee and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council ethics committee. The findings will be made available on the Kirby Institute UNSW website, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

Download Full-text