American Journal of Bioethics 10 (10):19-36 (2010)

Authors
Rosamond Rhodes
CUNY Graduate Center
Abstract
Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1080/15265161.2010.519233
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,242
External links

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

What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 2002 - Mind 111 (442):323-354.
Political Liberalism.J. Rawls - 1995 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 57 (3):596-598.
Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy.Bernard Williams - 2002 - Princeton: Princeton University Press.
The Birth of Bioethics.Albert R. Jonsen - 1998 - Oxford University Press.

View all 37 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Rethinking the Belmont Report?Phoebe Friesen, Lisa Kearns, Barbara Redman & Arthur L. Caplan - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics 17 (7):15-21.
When Is Participation in Research a Moral Duty?Rosamond Rhodes - 2017 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 45 (3):318-326.

View all 32 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Response to Commentators on “Rethinking Research Ethics”.Rosamond Rhodes - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):W15-W18.
Rethinking Research Ethics.Rosamond Rhodes - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (1):7 – 28.
Computer Ethics: An Argument for Rethinking Business Ethics.Wanbil W. Lee & Allan Kk Chan - forthcoming - 2nd World Business Ethics Forum: Rethinking the Value of Business Ethics, Hong Kong Baptist University, 1-12 December 2008.
Review of Rethinking the Ethics of Clinical Research. [REVIEW]David B. Resnik - 2013 - Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 7 (1).
Rethinking the Ethics of Research.Gregory E. Kaebnick - 2005 - Hastings Center Report 35 (5):2-2.
Rethinking the Ethics of Research.Karen Maschke - forthcoming - Hastings Center Report.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-02-04

Total views
17 ( #611,298 of 2,444,867 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #457,287 of 2,444,867 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes