PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8838046

Research ethics.

D Aarons
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This article reviews the ethical requirements for research. The ethics of human experimentation are informed by the basic principles of beneficence, justice and respect for persons. The principle of beneficence requires that a research protocol present a favourable risk/benefit ratio to subjects. Justice demands that the burden and benefits of research be equitably distributed. Respect for persons entails an obligation both to obtain informed consent from research subjects and to protect those who are unable to consent from the risks of research. The fundamental tenet of research ethics is a prior review by a panel of peers. This article argues for the establishment of Research Ethics Committees across the Caribbean to ensure that clinical research conforms to the highest scientific and ethical standards.

Explore related subjects

BeneficenceClinical Trials as TopicEthics CommitteesEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, MedicalHuman ExperimentationHumansInformed ConsentInternationalityNontherapeutic Human ExperimentationPatient SelectionPersonal AutonomyResearch SubjectsRisk AssessmentTherapeutic Human ExperimentationWest IndiesBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Aarons. 1995. Research ethics.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8838046/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Ethics roundtable debate: should a sedated dying patient be wakened to say goodbye to family?

Intensivists have the potential to maintain vital signs almost indefinitely, but not necessarily the potential to make moribund patients whole. Current ethical and legal mandates push patient autonomy to the forefront of care plans. When patients are incapable of expressing their preferences, surrogates are given proxy. It is unclear how these preferences extend to the very brink of inevitable death. Some say that patients should have the opportunity and authority to direct their death spiral. Others say it would be impossible for them to do so because an inevitable death spiral cannot be effectively palliated. Humane principles dictate they be spared the unrelenting discomfort surrounding death. The present case examines such a patient and the issues surrounding a unique end-of-life decision.

Beneficence↗
PubMed2003

Care and the problem of pity.

In recent years philosophers and bioethicists have given considerable attention to the concept of care. Thus we have seen important work on questions such as: whether there is a uniquely female approach to ethics, whether ethics should be partial or impartial, and whether care must be supplemented by justice. Despite this valuable and extensive work, however, some important distinctions have gone largely undiscussed. This paper tries to fill a gap left in our understanding of the concept of care itself by distinguishing between compassion and two kinds of pity. While all three are kinds of caring, we should not give them similar moral evaluations. Consequently, the distinction between compassion and different kinds of pity gives us an important insight into the question of whether we can consider care a virtue for health care professionals.

Beneficence↗