Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

The Duty to Rescue and Investigators' Obligations.

Douglas MacKay, Tina Rulli

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
    |April 4, 2017
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Egalitarian Justice and the Prevalence Principle in Human Genome Editing.

    The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2026
    Same author

    Preventive Human Genome Editing and Enhancement: Candidate Criteria for Governance.

    The Hastings Center report·2024
    Same author

    Embryo Gene Editing is Not Morally Better than Selection Even If Person-Affecting.

    The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2024
    Same author

    Challenging the Boundaries Between Treatment, Prevention, and Enhancement in Human Genome Editing.

    The CRISPR journal·2024
    Same author

    Public Policy Experiments without Equipoise: When Is Randomization Fair?

    Ethics & human research·2023
    Same author

    Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials.

    Ethics & human research·2022
    Same journal

    On the Dangers of Cancer Exceptionalism in Pain Medicine.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    Suck It Up and Stay on the Grind: Ethical Considerations Surrounding Trust, Chronic Pain, and the American Workplace.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    <i>Morbus Mediterraneus</i>: A Cultural Alibi for an Unequal Pain Burden.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    Beyond Words: A Philosophical Analysis of the Linguistic Refractoriness of Chronic Pain.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    When "Good-Enough" Treatment Is Not Good Enough: Epistemic Injustice, Pain-Related Motivational Deficit, and Epistemic Deflection in the Treatment of Gynecological Pain.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    Same journal

    The Silent Struggle: A Woman's Journey Through Pain.

    Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
    See all related articles

    Clinical investigators have a moral duty to provide ancillary and standard of care to research subjects. This duty stems from their institutional role, creating obligations to populations, not just individuals.

    Area of Science:

    • Bioethics
    • Medical Research Ethics

    Background:

    • Current ethical frameworks struggle to justify clinical investigators' duties to research participants, especially in resource-poor settings.
    • Existing applications of the moral duty to rescue inadequately explain specific obligations to research subjects.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To critically evaluate the application of the moral duty to rescue in defining investigators' ancillary and standard of care obligations.
    • To propose a refined account of the duty to rescue tailored to the institutional role of clinical investigators.

    Main Methods:

    • Analysis of existing ethical literature on the duty to rescue.
    • Conceptual examination of the normative significance of the institutional role of clinical investigators.
    • Development of a positive account of investigator duties.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • Current applications of the moral duty to rescue fail to adequately ground investigators' specific obligations to research participants.
    • These frameworks overlook the unique responsibilities conferred by the institutional position of investigators.
    • The proposed account emphasizes duties to populations, aligning with the role of institutional agents.

    Conclusions:

    • The moral duty to rescue, when applied to clinical investigators, must account for their institutional role.
    • Investigator duties extend beyond individual rescue, encompassing broader responsibilities to research populations.
    • A revised understanding of the duty to rescue is necessary for ethical clinical research in resource-poor settings.