Literature DB >> 16036651

Rethinking research ethics.

Rosamond Rhodes1.   

Abstract

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Belmont Report; Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Office for Human Research Protection

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16036651     DOI: 10.1080/15265160590900678

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Bioeth        ISSN: 1526-5161            Impact factor:   11.229


  19 in total

1.  High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Authors:  S Holm; T Takala
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Viewing research participation as a moral obligation: in whose interests?

Authors:  Stuart Rennie
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

3.  Changing perspectives in biobank research: from individual rights to concerns about public health regarding the return of results.

Authors:  Joanna Stjernschantz Forsberg; Mats G Hansson; Stefan Eriksson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  The obligation to participate in biomedical research.

Authors:  G Owen Schaefer; Ezekiel J Emanuel; Alan Wertheimer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Beneficence as a principle in human research.

Authors:  Ian Pieper; Colin J H Thomson
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2016-06

6.  A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation.

Authors:  Barbara E Ribeiro; Robert D J Smith; Kate Millar
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 7.  Treatment ethics, quality of life and health economics in the management of hematopoietic malignancies in older patients.

Authors:  H J Deeg
Journal:  Bone Marrow Transplant       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 5.483

8.  Are Concerns About Irremediableness, Vulnerability, or Competence Sufficient to Justify Excluding All Psychiatric Patients from Medical Aid in Dying?

Authors:  William Rooney; Udo Schuklenk; Suzanne van de Vathorst
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2018-12

9.  Contextualising merit and integrity within human research.

Authors:  Ian Pieper; Colin J H Thomson
Journal:  Monash Bioeth Rev       Date:  2011-09

10.  Participants' responsibilities in clinical research.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Elizabeth Ness
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 2.903

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.