Justice, Exploitation, and Ancillary Care

2012 ◽  
pp. 107-132
Author(s):  
Henry S. Richardson
Keyword(s):  
2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 679-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Brownsword

It is axiomatic that the first responsibility of researchers, whether they are working in the developed or the developing world, is to (strive to) do no harm to those who participate in their studies or trials. However, on neither side of the Atlantic is there any such settled view with regard to the responsibility of researchers to attend to the ancillary-care needs of their participants – that is, a responsibility to advise or assist participants who have medical condition X in circumstances where the research concerns medical condition Y, and the research did not contribute to the presence of condition X in participants, nor did the having of condition X contribute to the research. Consider, for example, the following hypothetical posed by Leah Belsky and Henry Richardson:Researchers testing a new treatment for tuberculosis in a developing country discover some patients have HIV infection. Do they have a responsibility to provide antiretroviral drugs?


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomi Tshikala ◽  
Bavon Mupenda ◽  
Pierre Dimany ◽  
Aime Malonga ◽  
Vicky Ilunga ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Henry S. Richardson

Medical researchers’ ancillary-care obligations have, until recently, been ignored by the authoritative guidelines on the ethics of medical research. Ancillary care is medical care, often unrelated to what is under study, that is not required by sound science, safe trial conduct, morally optional promises, or redressing research injuries. The question is when medical researchers have moral responsibilities to provide such care if their study participants need it. This question shows up insistently in studies done in resource-poor areas and—as the question of whether to return incidental findings—in genomic and imaging studies. After laying out six desiderata for a fully adequate account of medical researchers’ ancillary-care obligations, this chapter critically evaluates six potential grounds for such obligations—the duty of rescue, human rights, rectificatory justice, professional-role obligations, the researcher–participant relationship, and partial entrustment. It closes by suggesting the possibility of combining two or more of these grounds.


2016 ◽  
pp. 29-44
Author(s):  
S.MATTHEW LIAO ◽  
COLLIN O'NEIL
Keyword(s):  

JAMA ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 302 (4) ◽  
pp. 424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal Dickert

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 708-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. Hooper
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document