Justice, Fairness, and Membership in a Class: Conceptual Confusions and Moral Puzzles in the Regulation of Human Subjects Research
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):488-501 (2011)
This essay examines conceptual difficulties with one of the ways in which justice has been understood and applied the ethical and regulatory review of human research. Justice requires the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of research. Class membership is seen as justifying inclusion in higher hazard-no benefit research from which members of potentially vulnerable classes, such as children, typically would be excluded. I argue that class membership does not do the justificatory work it is thought to do and that the use of class membership to justify inclusion in higher hazard-no benefit research leads to unjustified discrimination of sick children and offers special protections to healthy children
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Eric G. Yan & Kerim M. Munir (2004). Regulatory and Ethical Principles in Research Involving Children and Individuals with Developmental Disabilities. Ethics and Behavior 14 (1):31 – 49.
Robert S. Hartman (1953). Group Membership and Class Membership. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 13 (3):353-370.
T. Phillips (2011). From the Ideal Market to the Ideal Clinic: Constructing a Normative Standard of Fairness for Human Subjects Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (1):79-106.
Deborah L. Kidder (2005). Is It 'Who I Am', 'What I Can Get Away With', or 'What You've Done to Me'? A Multi-Theory Examination of Employee Misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics 57 (4):389 - 398.
Stephen Napier (2013). Challenging Research on Human Subjects: Justice and Uncompensated Harms. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):29-51.
James Wilson & David Hunter (2010). Research Exceptionalism. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (8):45-54.
David Hunter & James Wilson (2010). Research Exceptionalism. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (8):45-54.
Charles Weijer, The Ethical Analysis of Risks and Potential Benefits in Human Subjects Research: History, Theory, and Implications for U.S. Regulation.
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited (II). Religious Studies 41 (3):287 - 303.
Tang Yijie & Yan Xin (2008). The Contemporary Significance of Confucianism. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (4):477 - 501.
Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne (2010). The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments. Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
H. E. Baber (1987). How Bad Is Rape? Hypatia 2 (2):125 - 138.
Marion Fortin & Martin R. Fellenz (2008). Hypocrisies of Fairness: Towards a More Reflexive Ethical Base in Organizational Justice Research and Practice. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 78 (3):415 - 433.
Jeremy Snyder (2010). Multiple Forms of Exploitation in International Research: The Need for Multiple Standards of Fairness. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):40-41.
Added to index2011-08-23
Total downloads7 ( #149,801 of 1,089,153 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?