David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 25 (1):9-20 (2011)
In research ethics there is a canon regarding what ethical rules ought to be followed by investigators vis-à-vis their treatment of subjects and a canon regarding what fundamental ethical principles apply to the endeavor. What I aim to demonstrate here is that several of the rules find no support in the principles. This leaves anyone who would insist that we not abandon those rules in the difficult position of needing to establish that we are nevertheless justified in believing in the validity of the rules. I conclude by arguing that this is not likely to be accomplished.The rules I call into question are the rules requiring:– that studies be designed in a scientifically valid way– that risks to subjects be minimized– that subjects be afforded post-trial access to experimental interventions– that inducements paid to subjects not be counted as a benefit to them– that inducements paid to subjects not be ‘undue’– that subjects must remain free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason without penaltyBoth canons, the canon on principles and the canon on rules, are found in the overlap among ethical pronouncements that are themselves canonical: the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, CIOMS's International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, and NBAC's 2001 report, Ethical Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries
|Keywords||Belmont Report respect for persons Nuremberg Code research ethics beneficence Declaration of Helsinki justice|
|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
Benjamin Sachs (2010). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Case for Evidence-Based Rulemaking”. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):1-3.
Similar books and articles
James M. DuBois (2004). Universal Ethical Principles in a Diverse Universe: A Commentary on Monshi and Zieglmayer's Case Study. Ethics and Behavior 14 (4):313 – 319.
Hope Ferdowsian (2011). Human and Animal Research Guidelines: Aligning Ethical Constructs with New Scientific Developments. Bioethics 25 (8):472-478.
R. R. Kishore (2006). Biomedical Research and Mining of the Poor: The Need for Their Exclusion. Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):175-183.
Ari VanderWalde & Seth Kurzban (2011). Paying Human Subjects in Research: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Now What? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (3):543-558.
Robert J. Gatchel, Perry N. Fuchs & Colin Allen (2006). 18 Ethical Issues in Chronic Pain Research. In B. L. Gant & M. E. Schatman (eds.), Ethical Issues in Chronic Pain Management. 295.
Seymour J. Garte (1995). Guidelines for Training in the Ethical Conduct of Scientific Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (1):59-70.
Jessica Berg & Nicole Deming (2011). New Rules for Research with Human Participants? Hastings Center Report 41 (6):10-11.
Terri L. Herron & David L. Gilbertson (2004). Ethical Principles Vs. Ethical Rules. Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (3):499-523.
B. Sachs (2009). The Exceptional Ethics of the Investigator-Subject Relationship. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (1):64-80.
Benjamin Sachs (2010). The Case for Evidence-Based Rulemaking in Human Subjects Research. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):3-13.
Added to index2009-07-30
Total downloads32 ( #75,301 of 1,696,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #77,991 of 1,696,306 )
How can I increase my downloads?