The Ethics of Study Impacts on Bystanders
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Most current regulations in research ethics are devoted to protecting the rights of study participants. On the contrary, a possibility that some studies might affect study bystanders has largely been neglected within the field of research ethics. Bystanders have not been placed within the purview of current regulations, even though their rights may be infringed by or require some protection from research activities. Some scholars recently began to pay attention to the issue of study impacts on bystanders, and suggested several different approaches to it. First, some suggested that it is required for researchers to treat bystanders in the same way as study participants, such that researchers have to seek individual informed consent from and grant veto right to bystanders. Second, some rejected this approach by arguing that more stringent protection is warranted for bystanders since they cannot often be informed with, protected from, and prepared for any potential risk or harm generated from research. Third, some others objected to both of these approaches and claimed that there are some moral and practical reasons to let us believe that bystander risks are more readily justifiable than study participants’ risks. Although it is not feasible to come up with a single unified framework here and resolve all of the ongoing disagreements, this article aims to analyze the logical structures of these distinct positions and introduce some of the relevant considerations to ethically assess bystander risks.
Abstract
Third, some others objected to both of these approaches and claimed that there are some moral and practical reasons to let us believe that bystander risks are more readily justifiable than study participants’ risks. Although it is not feasible to come up with a single unified framework here and resolve all of the ongoing disagreements, this article aims to analyze the logical structures of these distinct positions and introduce some of the relevant considerations to ethically assess bystander risks.
참고문헌 (20)
- Till Bärnighausen, "Sex partners as bystanders in HIV prevention trials: Two test cases for research ethics", Clinical Trials, 16(5), pp.455~457 (2019), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research . Vol. 2: The Commission, "Biomedical, United States", ~ (1978)
- "45 Cfr 46" (2018)[URL]
- Nir Eyal, "Risk to bystanders in clinical trials: A symposium", Clinical Trials, 16(5), pp.447~449 (2019), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- Nir Eyal, "Study bystanders and ethical treatment of study participants—A proof of concept", Bioethics, 34(9), pp.941~947 (2020), Wiley[DOI]
- Nir Eyal, "Ethical complexities of responding to bystander risk in HIV prevention trials", Clinical Trials, 16(5), pp.458~460 (2019), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- Amy L Fairchild, "Objective monitoring of mosquito bednet usage and the ethical challenge of privacy revelations about study bystanders: Ethical analysis", Clinical Trials, 16(5), pp.469~472 (2019), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- Holly Fernandez Lynch, "Minimal or reasonable? Considering the ethical threshold for research risks to nonconsenting bystanders and implications for nonconsenting participants", Bioethics, 34(9), pp.923~932 (2020), Wiley[DOI]
- JOHANN FRICK, "Contractualism and Social Risk", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 43(3), pp.175~223 (2015), Wiley[DOI]
- Matthew Hanser, "Risky research and bystander consent", Bioethics, 34(9), pp.912~917 (2020), Wiley[DOI]
- Jonathan Kimmelman, "Why IRBs should protect bystanders in human research", Bioethics, 34(9), pp.933~936 (2020), Wiley[DOI]
- Leonard, Herman B., "Values at Risk", pp.31~48 (1986), Rowman & Allanheld
- Resnik, David B., "Protecting Third Parties in Human Subjects Research", IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 28(4), pp.1~7 (2006)
- Rid, Annette, "A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research", Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 21(2), pp.141~179 (2011)
- S. K. Shah, "Bystander risk, social value, and ethics of human research", Science, 360(6385), pp.158~159 (2018), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)[DOI]
- Seema K. Shah, "The role of community engagement in addressing bystander risks in research: The case of a Zika virus controlled human infection study", Bioethics, 34(9), pp.883~892 (2020), Wiley[DOI]
- Seema K. Shah, "Ethics of controlled human infection to address COVID-19", Science, 368(6493), pp.832~834 (2020), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)[DOI]
- Shah, SK, "Ethical Considerations for Zika Virus Human Challenge Trials" (2017), National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
- Alec Walen, "Using, risking, and consent: Why risking harm to bystanders is morally different from risking harm to research subjects", Bioethics, 34(9), pp.899~905 (2020), Wiley[DOI]
- JONATHAN WOLFF, "RISK, FEAR, BLAME, SHAME AND THE REGULATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY", Economics and Philosophy, 22(3), pp.409~427 (2006), Cambridge University Press (CUP)[DOI]