Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:25:55.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Human Subject Research: Population-Based Research and Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Larry Gostin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ethical principles for the protection of human subjects in clinical research are now well recognized, and rooted in the inherent worth and dignity of the individual.

Respect for persons recognizes people as autonomous agents and requires that their choices be observed. For persons who are not fully autonomous, the principle of respect for persons requires that they are protected from risks and adverse consequences of research, even sometimes excluded from research.

Beneficence (do good) and non-maleficence (do no harm) are complementary ethical principles that impose affirmative duties on researchers to maximize any benefits for subjects and minimize any risks. Thus, researchers must go beyond mere respect for a person's choices. The researcher must be vigilant to ensure that the subject receives all possible benefits and avoids all possible harms from participating in the research.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 19 , Issue 3-4 , Fall Winter 1991 , pp. 191 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1991

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

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Office of Protection from Research Risks, U.S. Public Health Service: Bethesda, Md., April 18, 1979; Levine, R.J., Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. Yale University Press: New Haven, 2d ed. 1988.Google ScholarPubMed
Nuremberg Code 1947, printed in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, vol. II (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949, at 181-182); World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, 1964, revised by the 29th WHA, Tokyo, Japan, 1975, and the 35th WHA in Venice, Italy, 1983. Reprinted in Medical Ethics Declarations. World Medical Journal. 1984; 31:4; World Health Organization and Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Proposed International Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva, 1982.Google Scholar
Law Reform Commission of Canada. Biomedical Experimentation Involving Human Subjects: Working Paper 61. Ottawa, 1989; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Rules and Regulations, 45 CFR 46C (Revised as of March 8, 1983); French Consel d'Etat. De l'ethique au droit. Paris 1988.Google Scholar
Gostin, L., “Collective and Individual Rights: Towards Resolving the Conflict”. In: Gostin, L. (ed), Civil Liberties in Conflict, Routledge: London and New York, 1988.Google Scholar
Levine, R.J., supra note 1 at 52.Google Scholar
Geneva Declaration 1948, amended 1968, reprinted in Medical Ethics Declarations. World Medical Journal 1984;31:3.Google Scholar
Ajayi, O.O., “Taboos and Clinical Research in West Africa”, J. Med. Ethics 1980;6061–63.Google Scholar
The Belmont Report, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Nuremberg Code, supra note 1, first principle.Google Scholar
Declaration of Helsinki, supra note 2, article I, 9.Google Scholar
WHO/CIOMS, supra note 2, at 23–24.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. Recommendation No. R(90)3 Concerning Medical Research on Human Beings (6 Feb. 1990).Google Scholar
Hill, G.J., “Research on humans published in JAMA” (letter). J. Amer. Med. Assn. 1987; 258:1604.Google Scholar
Ekunwe, E.O. and Kessel, R., “Informed Consent in the Developing World”, Hastings Cen. Rep. 1984; 14:23–24.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rules and Regulations, 45 CFR 46, para. 46.116 (Revised as of March 8, 1983). Yet, some highly developed countries expressly reject the concept of informed consent. Sidaway v. Bethlehem Royal Hospital Governors [1985] A.C. 871.Google Scholar
Christakis, N.A., “The Ethical Design of an AIDS Vaccine Trial in Africa”. Hastings Center Rpt. 1988;18:31–37.Google Scholar
Ajayi, O.O., supra note 7; Adityanjee, D., “Informed Consent: Issues Involved for Developing Countries”. Med. Sci. & Law 1986; 26: 305–307; WHO/CIOMS, supra note 2; Levine, R.J., “Validity of Consent Procedures in Technologically Developing Countries. In: Human Experimentation and Medical Ethics,” Bankowski, Z. Howard-Jones, N., eds. Geneva: CIOMS, 1982, pp.16-30.Google Scholar
Indian Council of Medical Research. Policy statement on ethical considerations involved in research on human subjects 1980; New Delhi, ICMR.Google Scholar
Hall, A.J., “Public Health Trials in West Africa: Logistics and Ethics”. IRB 1989; 11:8–10.Google Scholar
Henderson, et al, “Assessment of Vaccination Coverage, Vaccination Scar Rates and Small Pox Scarring in Five Areas of West Africa”. Bull. WHO 1973;84:183–194.Google Scholar
Ajayi, O.O., supra note 7.Google Scholar
Adityanjee, D., supra note 17; Ajayi, O.O., supra note 7.Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Criteria for international testing of candidate HIV vaccines, 27 February – 2 March, 1989.Google Scholar
WHO/CIOMS, supra note 2.Google Scholar
WHO/CIOMS, supra note 2, paras. 14–15.Google Scholar
Hall, A.J., supra note 19.Google Scholar
Levine, R.J., supra note 5.Google Scholar
Centre for Human Rights, United Nations. The Rights of Indigenous Peoples. U.N.: Geneva, 1990.Google Scholar
Miller, J., “Towards an International Ethic for Research with Human Beings”. IRB 1988; 10:9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gostin, L., “The AIDS Litigation Project: A National Review of Court and Human Rights Commission Decisions, Part II: Discrimination”. J. Am. Med. Assn. 1990;263:2086–2093; PANOS Institute. The Third Epidemic: Repercussions of the fear of AIDS. 1990, PANOS, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchamp, T.L. Childress, J., Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York. 2nd ed. 1983.Google Scholar
Levine, R.J., supra note 5; Kelman, H.C., “Privacy and Research with Human Beings”. J. Soc. Issues 1977; 33:169–195.Google Scholar
Bok, S., “The Limits of Confidentiality”. Hastings Ctr. Rpt. 1983;13:24–31.Google Scholar
Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 452 (Tarasoff II), vacating 13 Cal.3d 117 (Tarasoff I).Google Scholar
Capron, A., “Protection of Research Subjects: Do Special Rules Apply in Epidemiology”. Paper presented at the IEF Conference on Ethics in Epidemiology, June 12–13, 1989, Birmingham, Alabama.Google Scholar
Tabor, E. Gerety, R.J. Cairns, J. Bayley, A.C., “Did HIV and HTLV Originate in Africa?” (letter). JAMA 1990; 264: 691–692.Google Scholar
Gostin, L., “The Future of Public Health Law”. Amer. J. Law & Med. 1987;12:461–490.Google Scholar
WHO, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Christakis, N.A., “Responding to a Pandemic: International Interests in AIDS Control”. Daedalus 1989; 118:113–134.Google Scholar
Gilks, F. and Were, J.B.O., “Ethical Imperialism” (letter) N. Engl. J. Med. 1990; 311:100Google Scholar
Angell, M., “Ethical Imperialism? Ethics in International Collaborative Clinical Research”. N. Engl. J. Med. 1990; 319:1081–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, M., “Ethical Considerations of Human Investigation in Developing Countries: The AIDS Dilemma”. N. Engl. J. Med. 1990; 319:1083–1086.Google Scholar