WHICH BENEFITS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPATION COUNT AS 'DIRECT'?
ABSTRACT It is widely held that individuals who are unable to provide informed consent should be enrolled in clinical research only when the risks are low, or the research offers them the prospect of direct benefit. There is now a rich literature on when the risks of clinical research are low enough...
| Publicado en: | Bioethics Vol. 26; no. 2; pp. 60 - 68 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , |
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Feb2012
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=104633579&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 104633579 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 02699702 6PJ jtl: Bioethics issn: 02699702 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Feb2012 vid: 26 iid: 2 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 104633579 2011432389 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01825.x NLM20497168 104633579 ppf: 60 ppct: 8 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: WHICH BENEFITS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPATION COUNT AS 'DIRECT'? aug: au: Friedman, Alexander Robbins, Emily Wendler, David affil: NIH Department of Bioethics sug: subj: Consent (Research) Ethical Issues Protection of Human Subjects Ethical Issues Clinical Research Ethical Issues Risk Assessment Research Subjects Harm Reduction Special Populations Clinical Research Standards Rules and Regulations Factor Analysis ab: ABSTRACT It is widely held that individuals who are unable to provide informed consent should be enrolled in clinical research only when the risks are low, or the research offers them the prospect of direct benefit. There is now a rich literature on when the risks of clinical research are low enough to enroll individuals who cannot consent. Much less attention has focused on which benefits of research participation count as 'direct', and the few existing accounts disagree over how this crucial concept should be defined. This disagreement raises concern over whether those who cannot consent, including children and adults with severe dementia, are being adequately protected. The present paper attempts to address this concern by considering first what additional protections are needed for these vulnerable individuals. This analysis suggests that the extant definitions of direct benefits either provide insufficient protection for research subjects or pose excessive obstacles to appropriate research. This analysis also points to a modified definition of direct benefits with the potential to avoid these two extremes, protecting individuals who cannot consent without blocking appropriate research. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|