Two dogmas of research ethics and the integrative approach to human-subjects research
Two dogmas of research ethics and the integrative approach to human-subjects research
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/03605310701255727
复制
发表时间：
2007-03-01
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
London, Alex John
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
London, Alex John
本文认为，研究伦理规范基础上挥之不去的不确定性是由两种毫无根据的研究伦理教条所长期存在的。第一个教条是，临床研究作为一种社会活动，本质上是一种功利主义的努力。第二条教条是，可接受的研究伦理框架必须对这项努力施加约束，其道德力量植根于医生或研究人员与角色相关的义务。本文认为，这些教条对于平衡要求的传统阐述和最近提出的替代方案（例如非剥削方法）来说是常见的。此外，这些方法的重要缺点可以追溯到它们对这些教条的接受。在强调了这些缺点之后，本文通过勾勒出临床研究“综合方法”替代方案的大致轮廓，说明了拒绝这些教条的好处。
This article argues that lingering uncertainty about the normative foundations of research ethics is perpetuated by two unfounded dogmas of research ethics. The first dogma is that clinical research, as a social activity, is an inherently utilitarian endeavor. The second dogma is that an acceptable framework for research ethics must impose constraints on this endeavor whose moral force is grounded in role-related obligations of either physicians or researchers. This article argues that these dogmas are common to traditional articulations of the equipoise requirement and to recently articulated alternatives, such as the non-exploitation approach. Moreover, important shortcomings of these approaches can be traced to their acceptance of these dogmas. After highlighting These shortcomings, this article illustrates the benefits of rejecting these dogmas by sketching The broad outlines of an alternative called the "integrative approach" to clinical research.