Literature DB >> 26224724

Involving Communities in Deciding What Benefits They Receive in Multinational Research.

David Wendler1, Seema Shah2.   

Abstract

There is wide agreement that communities in lower-income countries should benefit when they participate in multinational research. Debate now focuses on how and to what extent these communities should benefit. This debate has identified compelling reasons to reject the claim that whatever benefits a community agrees to accept are necessarily fair. Yet, those who conduct clinical research may conclude from this rejection that there is no reason to involve communities in the process of deciding how they benefit. Against this possibility, the present manuscript argues that involving host communities in this process helps to promote four important goals: (1) protecting host communities, (2) respecting host communities, (3) promoting transparency, and (4) enhancing social value. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Inc. 2015.

Keywords:  benefits; clinical research; exploitation; risks

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26224724      PMCID: PMC4573657          DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhv017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Philos        ISSN: 0360-5310


  21 in total

1.  Research at the auction block: Problems for the fair benefits approach to international research.

Authors:  Alex John London; Kevin J S Zollman
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  How to do research fairly in an unjust world.

Authors:  Angela J Ballantyne
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.229

3.  Why adopt a maximin theory of exploitation?

Authors:  Alan Wertheimer; Joseph Millum; G Owen Schaefer
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.229

4.  Protecting communities in health research from exploitation.

Authors:  Segun Gbadegesin; David Wendler
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.898

5.  From the ideal market to the ideal clinic: constructing a normative standard of fairness for human subjects research.

Authors:  Trisha Phillips
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  2011-01-26

6.  Justifying community benefit requirements in international research.

Authors:  Robert C Hughes
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 1.898

7.  International consultation on the criminalization of HIV transmission: 31 October-2 November 2007, Geneva, Switzerland. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Geneva, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, 2007.

Authors: 
Journal:  Reprod Health Matters       Date:  2009-11

8.  Ethical considerations related to the provision of care and treatment in vaccine trials.

Authors:  D Tarantola; R Macklin; Z H Reed; M P Kieny; S Osmanov; M Stobie; C Hankins
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2007-03-30       Impact factor: 3.641

9.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  'Relief of oppression': an organizing principle for researchers' obligations to participants in observational studies in the developing world.

Authors:  James V Lavery; Sunita V S Bandewar; Joshua Kimani; Ross E G Upshur; Frances A Plummer; Peter A Singer
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 3.295

View more
  3 in total

1.  Multiple-level stakeholder engagement in malaria clinical trials: addressing the challenges of conducting clinical research in resource-limited settings.

Authors:  George Mtove; Joshua Kimani; William Kisinza; Geofrey Makenga; Peter Mangesho; Stephan Duparc; Miriam Nakalembe; Kamija S Phiri; Russell Orrico; Ricardo Rojo; Pol Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 2.279

2.  Lay persons' perception of the requirements for research in emergency obstetric and newborn care.

Authors:  Dan Kabonge Kaye
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 2.652

3.  Collaborative partnership and the social value of clinical research: a qualitative secondary analysis.

Authors:  Sanna-Maria Nurmi; Arja Halkoaho; Mari Kangasniemi; Anna-Maija Pietilä
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 2.652

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.