Literature DB >> 24879129

Unequal treatment of human research subjects.

David B Resnik1.   

Abstract

Unequal treatment of human research subjects is a significant ethical concern, because justice in research involving human subjects requires equal protection of rights and equal protection from harm and exploitation. Disputes sometimes arise concerning the issue of unequal treatment of research subjects. Allegedly unequal treatment occurs when subjects are treated differently and there is a genuine dispute concerning the appropriateness of equal treatment. Patently unequal treatment occurs when subjects are treated differently and there is not a genuine dispute about the appropriateness of equal treatment. Allegedly unequal treatment will probably always occur in research with human subjects due to disagreements about fundamental questions of justice. The best way to deal with allegedly unequal treatment is to promote honest and open discussions of the issues at stake. Research regulations can help to minimize patently unequal treatment by providing rules for investigators, ethical review boards, institutions, and sponsors to follow. However, patently unequal treatment may still occur because the regulations are subject to interpretation. Federal agencies have provided interpretive guidance that can help promote consistent review and oversight of human subjects research. Additional direction may be needed on topics that are not adequately covered by current guidance or regulations. International guidelines can help promote equal treatment of human subjects around the globe. While minor variations in the treatment of research subjects should be tolerated and even welcomed, major ones (i.e. those that significantly impact human rights or welfare) should be avoided or minimized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 24879129      PMCID: PMC4294468          DOI: 10.1007/s11019-014-9569-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Health Care Philos        ISSN: 1386-7423


  28 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Informed consent in international health research.

Authors:  Patricia A Marshall
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  The ethics of clinical research in the Third World.

Authors:  M Angell
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-09-18       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Payment of clinical research subjects.

Authors:  Christine Grady
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 5.  Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

Authors:  George Silberman; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.911

6.  Minor changes to previously approved research: a study of IRB policies.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Gwen Babson; Gregg E Dinse
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug

7.  Perspective: The case for research justice: inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency in clinical research.

Authors:  Seth W Glickman; Adanma Ndubuizu; Kevin P Weinfurt; Carol D Hamilton; Lawrence T Glickman; Kevin A Schulman; Charles B Cairns
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 6.893

8.  Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study.

Authors:  Rita McWilliams; Julie Hoover-Fong; Ada Hamosh; Suzanne Beck; Terri Beaty; Garry Cutting
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-07-16       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?

Authors:  Seema Shah; Amy Whittle; Benjamin Wilfond; Gary Gensler; David Wendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial.

Authors:  A R Stark; J E Tyson; P L Hibberd
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 2.521

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  "Choice of law" in precision medicine research.

Authors:  Laura M Beskow; Leslie E Wolf
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 11.043

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.