David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 26 (1):15-21 (2012)
In this article, it is claimed that the protective provisions for adults with impaired decision-making capacity are misguided, insofar as they do not conclusively state whether research on this group should be permitted only as an exception, and as they arbitrarily allow for some groups to benefit from such research while others will not. Moreover, the presumed or former will of the subject is given insufficient weight, and the minimal risk standard does not make sense in this context. Because of these problems, the present guidelines allow for the possibility of vulnerable people being exploited, something that is hidden behind a guise of solidarity. Instead we need to address the real issues at stake by rewriting the present statutes. It is suggested that new guidelines should be in some continuity with earlier efforts. However, in order to protect these subjects there is additional need for appointed representatives who monitor research and for legal obligations to compensate for any injuries suffered. Without these or similar measures we won't have an adequate system in place for the protection of non-benefiting persons who are unable to consent to research
|Keywords||research ethics minimal risk vulnerable subjects incapacitated subjects|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Carol Levine, Ruth Faden, Christine Grady, Dale Hammerschmidt, Lisa Eckenwiler & Jeremy Sugarman (2004). The Limitations of "Vulnerability" as a Protection for Human Research Participants. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (3):44 – 49.
Andrew McRae & Charles Weijer, U.S. Federal Regulations for Emergency Research: A Practical Guide and Commentary.
Alexander Friedman, Emily Robbins & David Wendler (2012). Which Benefits of Research Participation Count as 'Direct'? Bioethics 26 (2):60-67.
Dave Wendler (2000). Informed Consent, Exploitation and Whether It is Possible to Conduct Human Subjects Research Without Either One. Bioethics 14 (4):310–339.
Nancy E. Kass & Jeremy Sugarman (1996). Are Research Subjects Adequately Protected? A Review and Discussion of Studies Conducted by the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6 (3):271-282.
R. R. Kishore (2006). Biomedical Research and Mining of the Poor: The Need for Their Exclusion. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):175-183.
John F. Kilner (2009). An Inclusive Ethics for the Twenty-First Century: Implications for Stem Cell Research. Journal of Religious Ethics 37 (4):683-722.
David Wendler (2005). Protecting Subjects Who Cannot Give Consent: Toward a Better Standard for "Minimal" Risks. Hastings Center Report 35 (5):37-43.
Added to index2010-02-26
Total downloads16 ( #146,415 of 1,696,514 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #343,026 of 1,696,514 )
How can I increase my downloads?