Research ethics and the principle of justice as fairness – a restatement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (5):395-406 (2003)
In my recent article, I addressed the question of whether a potential categorical exclusion of decisionally impaired patients from non-therapeutic medical research would be inaccordance with the Principle of Justice as Fairness. I came to the conclusion that a categorical exclusion of decisionally impaired persons from relevant research projects may collide with Rawls’s understanding of Justice as Fairness. Derek Bell has criticized my paper by denying that it is legitimate to apply Rawls to this bioethical problem. In my restatement I try to show that an extrapolation of John Rawls’s thought to such bioethical cases is possible, because Rawls himself has written that his orientation towards decisionally non-impaired persons is an idealized situation that allows extrapolations. In a second part I try to show that Bell hasroughly misunderstood my concept of “presumed consent” which I make a prerequisite for the legitimisation of research on decisionally impaired persons. In using advance consent as a proposal for resolving the problem, Bell has indirectly confirmed my approach because he is using a similar construct of consent, which operates with similar hypotheses and probabilities of error. I see here no categorical difference between Bell’s conclusion and my discussion. Thus, Bell’s reply does not represent a refutation of my thoughts, but rather it is a para phrased confirmation of my central theses. I conclude by showing the relevance of Rawls, pointing out that the discussion between Bell and me illustrates how Rawls’s concept of reflective equilibrium is an appropriate approach to finding a solution to this bioethical problem.
Keywords Derek Bell  philosophy of medicine  principle of justice  John Rawls  reflective equilibrium  research ethics  research on human subjects
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2004
DOI 10.1023/B:META.0000006905.88583.a4
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,813
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Fair Equality of Opportunity.Larry A. Alexander - 1985 - Philosophy Research Archives 11:197-208.
The Limits of Rawlsian Justice.Roberto Alejandro - 1998 - Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rawls on the Practicability of Utilitarianism.Ivar Labukt - 2009 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (2):201-221.
Environmental Justice and Rawls' Difference Principle.Derek Bell - 2004 - Environmental Ethics 26 (3):287-306.
Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.John Rawls - 2001 - Harvard University Press.
Rawls and Research on Cognitively Impaired Patients: A Reply to Maio.Derek R. Bell - 2003 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (5):381-393.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
44 ( #122,475 of 2,202,772 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #44,528 of 2,202,772 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature