David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 15 (4):312–332 (2001)
This paper examines the role of equipoise in evaluating international research. It distinguishes two possible formulations of the equipoise requirement that license very different evaluations of international research proposals. The interpretation that adopts a narrow criterion of similarity between clinical contexts has played an important role in one recent controversy, but it suffers from a number of problems. An alternative interpretation that adopts a broader criterion of similarity does a better job of avoiding both exploitation of the brute fact of social deprivation and the exploitation of needy populations for the benefit of more well-off populations. It also holds out the promise of reconciling the need to find interventions that can be employed in developing world contexts with the cluster of moral values that must constrain the way such research is carried out.
|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
Sven Ove Hansson (2004). Weighing Risks and Benefits. Topoi 23 (2):145-152.
Winston Chiong (2006). The Real Problem with Equipoise. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (4):37 – 47.
J. C. Lindsey, S. K. Shah, G. K. Siberry, P. Jean‐Philippe & M. J. Levin (2013). Ethical Tradeoffs in Trial Design: Case Study of an HPV Vaccine Trial in HIV‐Infected Adolescent Girls in Lower Income Settings. Developing World Bioethics 13 (2):95-104.
Rieke van der Graaf & Johannes J. M. van Delden (2009). What is the Best Standard for the Standard of Care in Clinical Research? American Journal of Bioethics 9 (3):35 – 43.
Rieke van Der Graaf & Johannes JM van Delden (2009). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “What is The Best Standard for the Standard of Care in Clinical Research?”. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (6):7-8.
Similar books and articles
Adil E. Shamoo (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press.
Ezekiel J. Emanuel (ed.) (2003). Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lynn A. Jansen (2005). A Closer Look at the Bad Deal Trial: Beyond Clinical Equipoise. Hastings Center Report 35 (5):29-36.
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.
Alex John London (2007). Two Dogmas of Research Ethics and the Integrative Approach to Human-Subjects Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (2):99 – 116.
R. R. Kishore (2006). Biomedical Research and Mining of the Poor: The Need for Their Exclusion. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):175-183.
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.
Angela Ballantyne (2008). Benefits to Research Subjects in International Trials: Do They Reduce Exploitation or Increase Undue Inducement? Developing World Bioethics 8 (3):178-191.
Benjamin Sachs (2011). Going From Principles to Rules in Research Ethics. Bioethics 25 (1):9-20.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #125,645 of 1,700,363 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #50,123 of 1,700,363 )
How can I increase my downloads?