Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T23:00:00.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Applying Bioethical Principles to Place-Based Communities and Cultural Group Protections: The Case of Biomonitoring Results Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Dianne Quigley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Individual research protections provided by bioethical principles can be extended to group protections, particularly for place-based (geographic) communities and cultural groups who may share a common harm or burden. In this article, an argument is made for the need to consider the group conditions of individual research subjects in the ethics of individual report-backs of human biomonitoring results. Human biomonitoring, the measuring of concentration of chemicals or their metabolites in blood, urine, breast milk, hair, and other biological samples, can provide an assessment of an individual's exposure to a chemical(s) and can integrate exposures from multiple pathways and sources. Biomonitoring studies have been increasing in the past decade for such purposes as measuring the levels of chemicals that are ingested by members of the general population and at what concentrations, to determine if exposure levels are higher in some groups vs. others, to track temporal trends to establish reference ranges for chemical exposures, and to investigate an association with health.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , Summer 2012 , pp. 348 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hays, S. M. Becker, R. A. Leung, H. W. Aylward, L. L. Pyatt, D. W., “Biomonitoring Equivalents: A Screening Approach for Interpreting Biomonitoring Results from a Public Health Perspective,” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 47, no. 1 (2007): 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Disease Control (CDC), Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, CDC National Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, Georgia, 2005.Google Scholar
Foster, W. G. Agzarian, J., “Reporting Results of Biomonitoring Studies,” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 387, no. 1 (January 2007): 137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, J. G. Morello-Frosch, R. Brown, P. Rudel, R. A. Altman, R. G. Frye, M. Osimo, C. A. Perez, C. Seryak, L. M., “Is It Safe? – New Ethics for Reporting Personal Exposures to Environmental Chemicals,” in Brown, P., ed., Perspectives in Medical Sociology, 4th ed. (Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. 2008).Google Scholar
Morello-Frosch, R. Brody, J. G. Brown, P. Altman, R. G. Rudel, R. A. Perez, C., “Toxic Ignorance and the Right-to-Know: Ethical and Scientific Dilemmas of Reporting Data in Body Burden Research,” Environmental Health 8, no. 6 (2009): 1–13, available at <http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476–069x-8-6.pdf> (last visited March 23, 2012).Google Scholar
Id., at 5.Google Scholar
Morgen, S., Into Our Own Hands: The Women's Health Movement in the Unites States, 1969–1990 (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2002): At chap. 4; Rodriguez-Trias, H., “Sterilization Abuse,” Women and Health 3, no. 3 (1978): 10–15.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J., “The Indian Health Service and the Sterilization of Native American Women,” American Indian Quarterly 24, no. 3 (Summer 2000): 400–419 (December 2011) and Volscho, T. W., “Sterilization Racism and Pan-Ethnic Disparities of the Past Decade: The Continued Encroachment on Reproductive Rights,” Wicazo Sa Review 25, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, C., In a Different Voice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
Pettersen, T., Comprehending Care (United Kingdom: Lexington Books, 2008).Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. Childress, J., Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Council for the International Organization of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in Collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), International Guidelines for Epidemiological Studies, Geneva, 2009.Google Scholar
Foster, M. W. Sharp, R. Freeman, W. Chino, M. Bernsten, D. Carter, T., “The Role of Community Review in Evaluating the Risks of Human Genetic Variation Research,” American Journal of Human Genetics 64, no. 6 (1999): 1719–1727; Taylor, H. A. Faden, R. R. Kass, N. E., “The Ethics of Public Health Research: Moral Obligations to Communities,” International Encyclopedia of Public Health (August 2008): 498–503; Weijer, C. Emanuel, E. J., “Protecting Communities in Biomedical Research,” Science 289, no. 5482 (August 18, 2000): 1142–1122; Wallwork, E., “Ethical Analysis of Research Partnerships with Communities,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18, no. 1 (March 2008): 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (Wallwork), at 64.Google Scholar
Paustenbach, D. Galbraith, D., “Biomonitoring: Is Body Burden Relevant to Public Health?” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 44, no. 3 (April 2006): 249–261, at 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 258.Google Scholar
LaKind, J. S. Brent, R. Dourson, M. J. Kacew, S. Koren, G. Sonawane, B. Tarzian, A. Uhl, K., “Human Milk Biomonitoring Data: Interpretation and Risk Assessment Issues,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 68, no. 20, Part A (2005): 1713–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 1716.Google Scholar
Id., at 1756.Google Scholar
Harrison, M., “Applying Bioethical Principles to Human Biomonitoring,” Environmental Health 7, Supp. 1 (2008): S1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soskolne, C. L., “Ethical, Social and Legal Issues Surrounding Studies of Susceptible Populations and Individuals,” Environmental Health Perspectives 105, Supp. 4 (1997): 837–841.Google Scholar
See Harrison, , supra note 20, at 4.Google Scholar
Id., at 6.Google Scholar
The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects or the “Common Rule” was published in 1991 and codified in separate regulations by 15 Federal departments and agencies. The Health and Human Services regulations, 45 CFR part 46, include four subparts: Subpart A, also known as the Federal Policy or the “Common Rule”; subpart B, additional protections for pregnant women, human fetuses, and neonates; subpart C, additional protections for prisoners; and subpart D, additional protections for children. The Common Rule outlines the basic provisions for Institutional Review Boards, human subjects protections based mostly on the Belmont Principles (beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice) and Assurances of Compliance. Most federal agencies and all academic institutions that hold federal funding must abide by the Common Rule.Google Scholar
See Harrison, , supra note 20, at 4.Google Scholar
See Foster, et al. , supra note 3.Google Scholar
See Foster, et al. , supra note 3, at 139.Google Scholar
Fernandez, C. V. Kodish, E. Weijer, C., “Informing Study Participants of Research Results: An Ethical Imperative,” IRB 25, no. 3 (2003): 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 12.Google Scholar
Id., at 13.Google Scholar
Id., at 14.Google Scholar
See Fernandez, et al. , supra note 28, at 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, R. Locke, P. Pirkle, J. Thompson, F. Sussman, D., “Will Biomonitoring Change the Way We Regulate Toxic Chemicals?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30, no. 3 (2002): 177–183.Google Scholar
Panikkar, B. Yazzie, E. Brugge, D., “The Ethical Issues in Uranium Mining Research in the Navajo Nation,” Accountability in Research 14, no. 2 (2007): 121–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quigley, D. Lowman, A. Wing, S., Tortured Science: Health Studies, Ethics and Nuclear Weapons in the United States (New York: Baywood Publications, 2011).Google Scholar
Id., and Durant, R. W. Legedza, A. T. Marcantonio, E. R. Freeman, M. B. Landon, B. E., “Different Types of Distrust in Clinical Research among Whites and African-Americans,” Journal of National Medical Association 103, no. 2 (February 2011): 123–130. Crawley, L. Ahn, D. Winknleby, M., “Perceived Medical Discrimination and Cancer Screening Behaviors of Racial and Ethnic Minority Adults,” Cancer Epidemiological Biomarkers Prevention 17, no. 8 (August 2008): 1937–1944. Betancourt, J. Green, A. Carrillo, J. E., “The Challenges of Cross-Cultural Health Care-Diversity, Ethics and the Medical Encounter,” Bioethics Forum 3, no. 16 (2000): 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See CIOMS 2009, supra note 12.Google Scholar
National Bioethics Advisory Committee (NBAC), Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, 2001, at 5, available through <http://www.ntis.gov> (last visited March 2012).+(last+visited+March+2012).>Google Scholar
See National Bioethics Advisory Committee, supra note 36, at 4.Google Scholar
Id., at 5.Google Scholar
Gbadegesian, S. Wendler, D., “Protecting Communities in Health Research from Exploitation,” Bioethics 20, no. 5 (2006): 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnbaum, D. R. Byron, M., Research Ethics: Text and Readings (New Jersey: Prentice Hall Press, 2001): At 147.Google Scholar
Dumez, B. Van Damme, K. Casteleyn, L., “Research on Ethics in Two Human Large Biomonitoring Projects, ECNIS and New Generis: A Bottom Up Approach,” Environmental Health 7, Supp. 1 (2008): S1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 5.Google Scholar
Id., at 6.Google Scholar
See Morello-Frosch, et al. , supra note 5; Adams, C. Brown, P. Morello-Frosch, R. Brody, J. G. Rudel, R. Zota, A. Dunagan, A. Tovar, S. P., “Community Context in Report-back of Personal Exposures,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 52, no. 2 (2011): 180–196; Altman, R. Morello-Frosch, R. Brody, J. Rudel, R. Brown, P. Averick, M., “Pollution Comes Home and Gets Personal: Women's Experience of Household Toxic Exposure,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 49, no. 4 (2008): 417–435; and Brody, J. G. Morello-Frosch, R. Zota, A. Brown, P. Perez, C. Rudel, R., “Linking Exposure Assessment Science with Policy Objectives for Environmental Justice and Breast Cancer Advocacy: The Northern California Exposure Study,” American Journal of Public Health 99, Supp. 3, no. 53 (2009): S600–608.Google Scholar
Id. (Adams, et al. ).Google Scholar
See Brody, et al. , supra note 46, at S607.Google Scholar
A precautionary benefit derives from the “precautionary principle,” described in Raffensberger, C. Tickner, J., ed., Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1999). Raffensberger, Tickner, describe the precautionary principle which proposes that we take preventive action in the face of uncertain harmful effects from toxic exposures; those who create these risks should have the responsibility to study and prevent these risks; alternatives to these toxic exposures should be developed; and public participation and increasing transparency should be part of the decision-making around these risks.Google Scholar