Unequal treatment of human research subjects

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：David B. Resnik (1)
  
  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ; National Institutes of Health ; Box 12233 ; Mail Drop CU 03 ; Research Triangle Park ; NC ; 27709 ; USA
  
• 关键词：Human subjects research ; Justice ; Equal treatment ; Ethics ; Regulation
• 刊名：Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：February 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：18
• 期：1
• 页码：23-32
• 全文大小：201 KB
• 参考文献：1. Afifi, R.Y. 2007. Biomedical research ethics: An Islamic view part II. / International Journal of Surgery 5(6): 381鈥?83. CrossRef
  2. Angell, M. 1997. The ethics of clinical research in the third world. / New England Journal of Medicine 337(12): 847鈥?49. CrossRef
  3. Aristotle. (2003) [350 BCE]. / Nichomachean ethics, ed. H. Tredennick, Transl. J.A. Thomson. New York: Penguin Books.
  4. Ballantyne, A.J. 2010. How to do research fairly in an unjust world. / American Journal of Bioethics 10(6): 26鈥?5. CrossRef
  5. Barnes, B. 1996. / Justice as impartiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. Berlin, I. 1955/1956. Equality. / Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56: 301鈥?26.
  7. Bonham, V., and J. Moreno. 2011. Research with captive populations: Prisoners, students, and soldiers. In / The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 461鈥?74. New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. Brandt, R.B. 1992. / Morality, utilitarianism, and rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Carr, C.L. 1981. The concept of formal justice. / Philosophical Studies 39(3): 211鈥?26. CrossRef
  10. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. 2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2013.
  11. Department of Health and Human Services. 2009. Protection of human subjects. 45 CFR 46. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
  12. Dworkin, R. 2000. / Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  13. Emanuel, E.J., D. Wendler, and C. Grady. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? / Journal of the American Medical Association 283(20): 2701鈥?711. CrossRef
  14. Emerson, R.W. 1841. Self-reliance. http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2014.
  15. Feinberg, J. 1987. / Harm to others. New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Food and Drug Administration. 2012. Information Sheet Guidance for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), Clinical investigators, and sponsors. http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/GuidancesInformationSheetsandNotices/ucm113709.htm. Accessed: 15 Dec 2013.
  17. Food and Drug Administration. 2013a. Institutional Review Boards. 21 CFR 56. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=56. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
  18. Food and Drug Administration. 2013b. Protection of Human Subjects. 21 CFR 50. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=50. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
  19. Glickman, S.W., N. Ndubuizu, K.P. Weinfurt, C.D. Hamilton, L.T. Glickman, K.A. Schulman, and C.B. Cairns. 2011. Perspective: The case for research justice: inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency in clinical research. / Academic Medicine 86(3): 389鈥?93. CrossRef
  20. Gold, J.L., and C.S. Dewa. 2005. Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way? / Health Services Research 40: 291鈥?07. CrossRef
  21. Goodin, R.E. 1985. / Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Pres.
  22. Gosepath, S. 2007. Equality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/. Accessed 6 Dec 2013.
  23. Grady, C. 2005. Payment of clinical research subjects. / Journal of Clinical Investigation 115(7): 1681鈥?687. CrossRef
  24. Grady, C., and C. Denny. 2011. Research involving women. In / The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 407鈥?22. New York: Oxford University Press.
  25. Grady, C., N. Dickert, T. Jawetz, G. Gensler, and E.J. Emanuel. 2005. An analysis of U.S. practices of paying research participants. / Contemporary Clinical Trials 26(3): 365鈥?75. CrossRef
  26. Green, L.A., J.C. Lowery, C.P. Kowalski, and L. Wyszewianski. 2006. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. / Health Services Research 41: 214鈥?30. CrossRef
  27. Iltis, A. 2007. Pediatric research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit: challenging 45 CFR 46.406. / Accountability in Research 14(1): 19鈥?4. CrossRef
  28. Jansen, L.A., and S. Wall. 2013. Rethinking exploitation: A process-centered account. / Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 23(4): 381鈥?10. CrossRef
  29. Klitzman, R. 2011. How local IRBs view central IRBs in the US. / BMC Medical Ethics 12: 13. CrossRef
  30. Kopelman, L.M. 2000. Moral problems in assessing research risk. / IRB 22(5): 7鈥?0. CrossRef
  31. Krogstad, D.J., S. Diop, A. Diallo, F. Mzayek, J. Keating, O.A. Koita, and Y.T. Tour茅. 2010. Informed consent in international research: The rationale for different approaches. / American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 83(4): 743鈥?47. CrossRef
  32. Levine, R.J. 1988. / Ethics and regulation of clinical research, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  33. Levine, R.J. 1991. Informed consent: Some challenges to the universal validity of Western model. / Law, Medicine and Health Care 19: 107鈥?13.
  34. Lurie, P., and S.M. Wolfe. 1997. Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. / New England Journal of Medicine 337(12): 853鈥?56. CrossRef
  35. Mansbach, J., U. Acholonu, S. Clark, and C.A. Camargo Jr. 2007. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard, observational, pediatric research protocol. / Academic Emergency Medicine 14: 377鈥?80. CrossRef
  36. Marshall, P.A. 2006. Informed consent in international health research. / Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1(1): 25鈥?2. CrossRef
  37. Martinson, B.C., M.S. Anderson, A.L. Crain, and R. de Vries. 2006. Scientists鈥?perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. / Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1(1): 51鈥?6. CrossRef
  38. Mastroianni, A., and J. Kahn. 2001. Swinging on the pendulum. Shifting views of justice in human subjects research. / Hastings Center Report 31(3): 21鈥?8. CrossRef
  39. McWilliams, R., J. Hoover-Fong, A. Hamosh, S. Beck, T. Beaty, and G. Cutting. 2003. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. / Journal of the American Medical Association 290: 360鈥?66. CrossRef
  40. Mill, J.S. 2003 [1859, 1863]. / Utilitarianism and on liberty. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
  41. Muniyappa, R., S. Lee, H. Chen, and M.J. Quon. 2008. Current approaches for assessing insulin sensitivity and resistance in vivo: Advantages, limitations, and appropriate usage. / American Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology, and Metabolism 294(1): E15鈥揈26. CrossRef
  42. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. 1998. Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders that May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity. https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/capacity/TOC.htm. Accessed 19 Apr 2014.
  43. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed 6 Dec 2013.
  44. Nielsen, K. 1979. Radical egalitarian justice: Justice as equality. / Social Theory and Practice 5(2): 209鈥?26. CrossRef
  45. Nozick, R. 1975. / Anarchy, state, utopia. New York: Basic Books.
  46. Office of Human Research Protections. 2013a. Policy and guidance. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/index.html. Accessed: 14 Dec 2013.
  47. Office of Human Research Protections. 2013b. 2014 Edition of the International Compilation of Human Research Standards. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/2014intlcomp.doc.doc. Accessed 15 Dec 2013.
  48. Pike, E.R. 2014. In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants. / Journal of Medical Ethics 40(13): 182鈥?85.
  49. Rawls, J. 1971. / A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  50. Rawls, J. 1993. / Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
  51. Resnik, D.B. 1998. The ethics of HIV research in developing nations. / Bioethics 12(4): 285鈥?06.
  52. Resnik, D.B. 2003. Exploitation in biomedical research. / Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24(3): 233鈥?59.
  53. Resnik, D.B. 2005. Eliminating the daily life risks standard of minimal risk. / Journal of Medical Ethics 31(1): 35鈥?8.
  54. Resnik, D.B. 2012. Centralized institutional review boards: Assessing the arguments and evidence. / Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices 8(11): 1鈥?3.
  55. Resnik, D.B., G. Babson, and G.E. Dinse. 2012. Minor changes to previously approved research: a study of IRB policies. / IRB 34(4): 9鈥?4.
  56. Resnik, D.B., E. Parasidis, K. Carroll, J.M. Evans, E.R. Pike, and G.E. Kissling. 2014. Research-related injury compensation policies of U.S. research institutions. / IRB 36(1): 12鈥?0.
  57. Rhodes, R. 2005. Justice in medicine and public health. / Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14(1): 13鈥?6. CrossRef
  58. Rhodes, R. 2010. Rethinking research ethics. / American Journal of Bioethics 10(10): 19鈥?6. CrossRef
  59. Rhodes, R., M.P. Battin, and A. Silvers. 2002. / Medicine and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
  60. Sandel, M.J. (ed.). 2007. / Justice: A reader. New York: Oxford University Press.
  61. Sen, A. 2011. / The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  62. Shah, S., A. Whittle, B. Wilfond, G. Gensler, and D. Wendler. 2004. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? / Journal of the American Medical Association 291(4): 476鈥?82. CrossRef
  63. Silberman, G., and K.L. Kahn. 2011. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: The state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. / Milbank Quarterly 89: 599鈥?27. CrossRef
  64. Snyder, J., C.L. Miller, and G. Gray. 2011. Relative versus absolute standards for everyday risk in adolescent HIV prevention trials: Expanding the debate. / American Journal of Bioethics 11(6): 5鈥?3. CrossRef
  65. Stark, A.R., J.E. Tyson, and P.L. Hibberd. 2010. Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. / Journal of Perinatology 30(3): 163鈥?69. CrossRef
  66. Varmus, H., and D. Satcher. 1997. Ethical complexities of conducting research in developing countries. / New England Journal of Medicine 337(12): 1000鈥?005.
  67. World Medical Association. 2013. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2013 revision. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed: 17 Dec 2013.
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Theory of Medicine and Bioethics
  Medical Law
  Ethics
  History of Medicine
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-8633

文摘

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.