Having pointed out some curriculum goals in medical ethics, a plea is
made for extensive animal experimentation, especially in emergency med
icine in order to minimize necessary investigations in human beings. A
lthough certain groups of patients (persons in custody, minors) are pr
otected nowadays against unjustified research activities by legal rest
raints, well-designed therapeutic (even non-therapeutic) investigative
projects can be facilitated under certain conditions. The same attitu
de might be adopted for ''special'' populations (e.g., HIV patients),
which are very often excluded for various reasons. Research protocols
and statistical evaluation should not be permitted to differ in these
groups in comparison to ''normal'' patients. The issue of ''informed c
onsent'' in emergency research with the main emphasis on resuscitation
cannot be considered as resolved [39] since many patients are unconsc
ious or at least incompetent. Irrespective of the number of legislativ
e constructions proposed mainly in the USA (''proxy consent'', ''subst
itute decision making,'' deferred consent'' - the latter being already
declared a misnomer by its ''inventor'' [40]), ethical standards migh
t better be adapted to the respective situations guided by competent e
thical committees. As for the particulars of research protocols, rando
mization combined with a blind or double-blind study design is now con
sidered to be ethically desirable by a majority of authors, the same h
olding true for risk stratification and sequential test procedures in
order to reduce the number of patients required. The ''theory of intui
tive thinking'' [18] is briefly touched upon as a futuristic investiga
tive method and/or decision strategy. Summarizing the reflections pres
ented, ''bioethics'', like any ethical system, cannot exceed an ancill
ary function, thus never providing a moral seal of approval. In order
to warrant qualified research the emergency physician must therefore b
e prepared to ''live with uncertainty'' [33].