David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):351 – 378 (2004)
Classifying research proposals by risk of harm is fundamental to the approval process and the most pivotal risk category in most regulations is that of “minimal risk.” If studies have no more than a minimal risk, for example, a nearly worldwide consensus exists that review boards may sometimes: (1) expedite review, (2) waive or modify some or all elements of informed consent, or (3) enroll vulnerable subjects including healthy children, incapacitated persons and prisoners even if studies do not hold out direct benefits to them. The moral and social purposes behind this threshold are discussed along with relevant views from the National Commission, NBAC, NHRPAC, Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, The Nuremberg Code, and The WMA's Declaration of Helsinki. Representative policies from Australia, Canada, South Africa, the U.S., and CIOMS are reviewed revealing different understandings of this sorting threshold. Six of nine frequently cited interpretations of “minimal risk” are untenable. The “absolute” interpretation of the “routine examination” standard is defended as best
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Miles Little (2009). The Role of Regret in Informed Consent. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):49-59.
David Wendler (2012). A New Justification for Pediatric Research Without the Potential for Clinical Benefit. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (1):23 - 31.
Loretta M. Kopelman (2012). On Justifying Pediatric Research Without the Prospect of Clinical Benefit. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (1):32 - 34.
Seema Shah (2011). The Dangers of Using a Relative Risk Standard for Minimal Risk. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):22 - 23.
Bernice S. Elger (2008). Research Involving Prisoners: Consensus and Controversies in International and European Regulations. Bioethics 22 (4):224–238.
Similar books and articles
Bernice S. Elger & Anne Spaulding (2010). Research on Prisoners – a Comparison Between the Iom Committee Recommendations (2006) and European Regulations. Bioethics 24 (1):1-13.
David Wendler (2004). Risk Standards for Pediatric Research: Rethinking The. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (2):187-198.
Helen M. Sharp & Robert D. Orr (2004). When "Minimal Risk" Research Yields Clinically-Significant Data, Maybe the Risks Aren't So Minimal. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):32-36.
David Wendler (2005). Protecting Subjects Who Cannot Give Consent: Toward a Better Standard for "Minimal" Risks. Hastings Center Report 35 (5):37-43.
Eugenijus Gefenas (2007). Balancing Ethical Principles in Emergency Medicine Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):281-288.
Jeremy Snyder, Cari L. Miller & Glenda Gray (2011). Relative Versus Absolute Standards for Everyday Risk in Adolescent HIV Prevention Trials: Expanding the Debate. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):5 - 13.
Andrew D. McRae, Stacy Ackroyd-Stolarz & Charles Weijer, Risk in Emergency Research Using a Waiver of/Exception From Consent: Implications of a Structured Approach for Institutional Review Board Review.
Carson Strong (2011). Minimal Risk in Research Involving Pregnant Women and Fetuses. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):529-538.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #173,263 of 1,096,392 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #224,935 of 1,096,392 )
How can I increase my downloads?