[Minutes, Advisory Committee to the Director GP-160 Meeting (1992: Bethesda, Maryland)]

1 selected by the Congress for the proposed efficacy
2 trial.
3 Not only is this a case of law preempting
4 science and scientific judgment, it's a case of law
5 preempting science in the context of a clinical trial
6 involving human subjects. I'm sure that many of you
7 share my concerns about the precedent that such a
8 preemption might set.
9 Underpinning all clinical research
10 involving human subjects is the principle derived from
11 the Hippocratic Oath and underscored in the Belmont
12 Report requiring physicians to benefit their patients
13 "according to their best judgment." Presumably, that
14 means their best judgment based on scientific fact and
15 not on legislative mandate.
16 From the most cynical point of view, it
17 would appear that the Congress has signed an
18 uninformed consent form for patients with AIDS. Let
19 us bear in mind, however, that the Congress'
20 motivation in passing this legislation is the same
21 motivation that drives all of us for AIDS research,
22 the desire to find a cure for this devastating
NEAL R. GROSS
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
[phone] WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 [phone]