Treatment needs in hiv prevention trials: Using beneficence to clarify sponsor-investigator responsibilities
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Developing World Bioethics 10 (3):150-157 (2010)
Some participants will get HIV-infected in HIV prevention trials, despite risk reduction measures. The subsequent treatment responsibilities of sponsor-investigators have been widely debated, especially where access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is not available. In this paper, we explore two accounts of beneficence to establish whether they can shed light on sponsor-investigator responsibilities. We find the notion of general beneficence helpful insofar as it clarifies that some beneficent actions will be obligatory where they can be dispensed without scuppering the trial. We find the notion of specific beneficence helpful insofar as it directs investigators to attend to the needs of trial participants; however the range of interventions that could be provided remains unhelpfully broad. We then examine accounts of the investigator-participant relationship to narrow the range of interventions that investigators should provide, concluding that health-care, and HIV infection, are appropriate foci. We conclude that when investigators are able to meet the ART needs of their participants (e.g. referral, assisted referral or direct provision) without sacrificing trial quality, they must do so. However, there is little of this explicit direction to be found in the account of specific beneficence itself, but rather it is found in accounts of the relationship that are compatible with beneficence
|Keywords||care clinical trials ethics antiretroviral therapy developing world health care bioethics|
|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
Jacquelyn Slomka (2009). Manufacturing Mistrust: Issues in the Controversy Regarding Foster Children in the Pediatric Hiv/Aids Clinical Trials. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):503-516.
John Douard (1990). Ethics, AIDS, and Community Responsibility. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 11 (3).
Charles Weijer & Guy J. Leblanc (2006). The Balm of Gilead: Is the Provision of Treatment to Those Who Seroconvert in HIV Prevention Trials a Matter of Moral Obligation or Moral Negotiation? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (4):793-808.
Charles Weijer & Guy LeBlanc, Revisiting the Ethics of HIV Prevention Research in Developing Countries.
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.
S. Philpott, K. West Slevin, K. Shapiro & L. Heise (2010). Impact of Donor-Imposed Requirements and Restrictions on Standards of Prevention and Access to Care and Treatment in HIV Prevention Trials. Public Health Ethics 3 (3):220-228.
Udo Schuklenk (2007). HIV Vaccine Trials: Reconsidering the Therapeutic Misconception and the Question of What Constitutes Trial Related Injuries. Developing World Bioethics 7 (3).
R. Macklin (2010). Intertwining Biomedical Research and Public Health in HIV Microbicide Research. Public Health Ethics 3 (3):199-209.
Joseph Millum (2011). Post-Trial Access to Antiretrovirals: Who Owes What to Whom? Bioethics 25 (3):145-154.
Nicola Barsdorf, Suzanne Maman, Nancy Kass & Catherine Slack (2010). Access to Treatment in Hiv Prevention Trials: Perspectives From a South African Community. Developing World Bioethics 10 (2):78-87.
Added to index2010-01-05
Total downloads6 ( #162,909 of 1,089,154 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?