Ethics and etiquette in an emergency vaccine trial. The orchestration of compliance.

Q1 Arts and Humanities Global Bioethics Pub Date : 2020-02-21 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/11287462.2020.1726591
Arsenii Alenichev
{"title":"Ethics and etiquette in an emergency vaccine trial. The orchestration of compliance.","authors":"Arsenii Alenichev","doi":"10.1080/11287462.2020.1726591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Participant non-compliance and withdrawal from randomized clinical trials has increased focus on analysing the results from the \"per-protocol\" population that complies with a trial's protocols. There is no clear understanding of what shapes protocol compliance in practice. In this paper, I theorize clinical research from the perspective of participants in an Ebola vaccine trial by analysing the practices that contributed to very high compliance rates. In this setting, per-protocol compliance became an essential component in forming a class of \"proper\" researchers and participants working together in the rapidly expanding market of clinical research. Bioethics supports participants' right to withdraw from research as an ethical safeguard in the process. But participants seeking affiliations with powerful institutions may voluntarily embrace their trial responsibilities over a right to withdraw. To understand this phenomenon, this analysis uses the notion of <i>bioetiquette</i> - the set of rules specifying \"proper\" and \"improper\" trial subjects and behaviours - which runs in the shadow of formal bioethics in trials and requires careful transdisciplinary examination.</p>","PeriodicalId":36835,"journal":{"name":"Global Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11287462.2020.1726591","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2020.1726591","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Participant non-compliance and withdrawal from randomized clinical trials has increased focus on analysing the results from the "per-protocol" population that complies with a trial's protocols. There is no clear understanding of what shapes protocol compliance in practice. In this paper, I theorize clinical research from the perspective of participants in an Ebola vaccine trial by analysing the practices that contributed to very high compliance rates. In this setting, per-protocol compliance became an essential component in forming a class of "proper" researchers and participants working together in the rapidly expanding market of clinical research. Bioethics supports participants' right to withdraw from research as an ethical safeguard in the process. But participants seeking affiliations with powerful institutions may voluntarily embrace their trial responsibilities over a right to withdraw. To understand this phenomenon, this analysis uses the notion of bioetiquette - the set of rules specifying "proper" and "improper" trial subjects and behaviours - which runs in the shadow of formal bioethics in trials and requires careful transdisciplinary examination.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
紧急疫苗试验中的道德与礼仪遵从性的编排。
参与者不遵守随机临床试验和退出随机临床试验增加了人们对分析符合试验方案的“每个方案”人群结果的关注。对于在实践中是什么形成了协议遵从性,目前还没有明确的理解。在本文中,我从埃博拉疫苗试验参与者的角度对临床研究进行了理论化,分析了导致高依从率的做法。在这种情况下,在快速扩大的临床研究市场中,每个方案的依从性成为形成一类“适当的”研究人员和参与者共同工作的重要组成部分。生物伦理学支持参与者退出研究的权利,作为研究过程中的伦理保障。但寻求与强大机构建立联系的参与者可能会自愿接受他们的审判责任,而不是退出的权利。为了理解这一现象,该分析使用了生物礼仪的概念——一套规定“适当的”和“不适当的”试验对象和行为的规则——它在试验的正式生物伦理学的阴影下运行,需要仔细的跨学科检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Bioethics
Global Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊最新文献
Can biosampling really be "non-invasive"? An examination of the socially invasive nature of physically non-invasive biosampling in urban and rural Malawi. The expressivist argument for recent policy changes regarding the provision of prenatal testing in Japan. A youth advisory group on health and health research in rural Cambodia. May Artificial Intelligence take health and sustainability on a honeymoon? Towards green technologies for multidimensional health and environmental justice. Broad consent for biobank research in South Africa - Towards an enabling ethico-legal framework
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1