Relative Versus Absolute Standards for Everyday Risk in Adolescent HIV Prevention Trials: Expanding the Debate
American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):5 - 13 (2011)
|Abstract||The concept of minimal risk has been used to regulate and limit participation by adolescents in clinical trials. It can be understood as setting an absolute standard of what risks are considered minimal or it can be interpreted as relative to the actual risks faced by members of the host community for the trial. While commentators have almost universally opposed a relative interpretation of the environmental risks faced by potential adolescent trial participants, we argue that the ethical concerns against the relative standard may not be as convincing as these commentators believe. Our aim is to present the case for a relative standard of environmental risk in order to open a debate on this subject. We conclude by discussing how a relative standard of environmental risk could be defended in the specific case of an HIV vaccine trial among adolescents in South Africa|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeremy Snyder, Cari L. Miller & Glenda Gray (2011). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Relative Versus Absolute Standards for Everyday Risk in Adolescent HIV Prevention Trials: Expanding the Debate”. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):W1 - W3.
Catherine Slack, Ann Strode, Theodore Fleischer, Glenda Gray & Chitra Ranchod (2007). Enrolling Adolescents in HIV Vaccine Trials: Reflections on Legal Complexities From South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics 8 (1):1-8.
Catherine M. Slack (2011). Why We Don't Need a Relative Risk Standard for Adolescent HIV Vaccine Trials in South Africa. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):21 - 22.
Keymanthri Moodley (2002). HIV Vaccine Trial Participation in South Africa - an Ethical Assessment. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (2):197 – 215.
Udo Schuklenk, Hiv Vaccine Trials: Reconsidering the Therapeutic Misconception and the Question of What Constitutes Trial Related Injuries.
Keymanthri Moodley (2007). Microbicide Research in Developing Countries: Have We Given the Ethical Concerns Due Consideration? BMC Medical Ethics 8 (1):1-7.
R. Macklin (2010). Intertwining Biomedical Research and Public Health in HIV Microbicide Research. Public Health Ethics 3 (3):199-209.
Sven Ove Hansson (2004). Weighing Risks and Benefits. Topoi 23 (2).
Jonathan Kimmelman (2004). Valuing Risk: The Ethical Review of Clinical Trial Safety. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):369-393.
David Wendler (2004). Risk Standards for Pediatric Research: Rethinking The. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (2).
Melissa Stobie & Catherine Slack (2010). Treatment Needs in Hiv Prevention Trials: Using Beneficence to Clarify Sponsor-Investigator Responsibilities. Developing World Bioethics 10 (3):150-157.
James A. Anderson & Jonathan Kimmelman (forthcoming). Are Phase 1 Trials Therapeutic? Risk, Ethics, and Division of Labor. Bioethics.
Bridget G. Haire (2011). Because We Can: Clashes of Perspective Over Researcher Obligation in the Failed Prep Trials. Developing World Bioethics 11 (2):63-74.
George Howard (2010). Statistical Power, the Belmont Report, and the Ethics of Clinical Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):675-691.
Added to index2011-06-15
Total downloads3 ( #202,056 of 549,196 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,196 )
How can I increase my downloads?