David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Research involving the vulnerable sick raises difficult challenges for investigators and Institutional Review Boards. Exactly who among the ill counts as vulnerable is a matter of judgement, and involves consideration of susceptibility to harm and capacity to provide free and informed consent. A balanced approach is required when protections are considered, and the benefits as well as the risks of research participation must be carefully weighed. A variety of protections for the vulnerable sick in research are available, including enrolling subjects in a study only with a strong justification, ensuring that consent is free and comprehending, and setting limits on the risk to which they may be asked to endure. Discussion of three contemporary controversies, placebo-controlled trials in the psychiatric setting, phase I clinical trials and oncology patients, and emergency room research involving patients incapable of giving consent, highlights the little recognized prominence of risk-benefit issues in the clinical studies in the vulnerable sick
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Charles Weijer (2002). I Need a Placebo Like I Need a Hole in the Head. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):69-72.
Similar books and articles
Andrew D. McRae & Charles Weijer, Lessons From Everyday Lives: A Moral Justification for Acute Care Research.
Stephanie R. Solomon (2013). Protecting and Respecting the Vulnerable: Existing Regulations or Further Protections? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):17-28.
Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) (2009). The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine. Oxford University Press.
Alexander Friedman, Emily Robbins & David Wendler (2012). Which Benefits of Research Participation Count as 'Direct'? Bioethics 26 (2):60-67.
Andrew McRae & Charles Weijer, U.S. Federal Regulations for Emergency Research: A Practical Guide and Commentary.
Charles Weijer & Paul B. Miller, When Are Research Risks Reasonable in Relation to Anticipated Benefits?
R. Norman, D. Sellman & C. Warner (2006). Mental Capacity, Good Practice and the Cyclical Consent Process in Research Involving Vulnerable People. Clinical Ethics 1 (4):228-233.
Philip J. Nickel (2006). Vulnerable Populations in Research: The Case of the Seriously Ill. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (3):245-264.
James A. Anderson & Jonathan Kimmelman (2014). Are Phase 1 Trials Therapeutic? Risk, Ethics, and Division of Labor. Bioethics 28 (3):138-146.
Margaret Brazier & Mary Lobjoit (eds.) (1991). Protecting the Vulnerable: Autonomy and Consent in Health Care. Routledge.
Pamela Fisher (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research: 'Vulnerability', Citizenship and Human Rights. Ethics and Social Welfare 6 (1):2-17.
Tom L. Beauchamp, Bruce Jennings, Eleanor D. Kinney & Robert J. Levine (2002). Pharmaceutical Research Involving the Homeless. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):547 – 564.
Added to index2010-09-08
Total downloads14 ( #120,617 of 1,102,119 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #128,850 of 1,102,119 )
How can I increase my downloads?