Related Experiment Videos
Distributive justice and clinical trials in the Third World
1Department of Philosophy, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353, USA. cooleyd@mail.ecu.edu
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
|August 14, 2001
Summary
Ethical guidelines for human subject trials in developing nations are debated. This study argues that the distributive justice principle used to criticize trials is too vague and does not inherently make research unethical.
Area of Science:
- Bioethics
- Global Health Research Ethics
Background:
- International research ethics guidelines, specifically the CIOM'S Eighth Guideline, are subject to interpretation.
- A common critique of human subject trials in developing countries involves the principle of distributive justice.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the application of the distributive justice principle in international research ethics.
- To evaluate the validity of using this principle to deem human subject trials unethical.
Main Methods:
- Critical analysis of ethical principles and guidelines.
- Examination of arguments concerning the exploitation of communities in research.
Main Results:
- The distributive justice principle, as applied in commentaries on the CIOM'S Eighth Guideline, is found to be vague and ambiguous.
- The principle's vagueness makes it an unreliable basis for ethical criticism of research trials.
Conclusions:
- The distributive justice principle, due to its ambiguity, cannot be reliably used to condemn human subject trials.
- Failure to meet this specific distributive justice principle does not automatically render an international research trial unethical.