Bioethics as Object of Study: Dilemmas of Immanence in Research Ethics Review.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2021-04-01 Epub Date: 2020-10-14 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2020.1829744
Carey DeMichelis
{"title":"Bioethics as Object of Study: Dilemmas of Immanence in Research Ethics Review.","authors":"Carey DeMichelis","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2020.1829744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper explores a dilemma that confronts empirical researchers who are interested in taking the field of bioethics itself as an object of study. Drawing inspiration and data from a recent Institutional Review Board (IRB) process, I discuss my current research, which explores the phenomenon of pediatric biomedical refusal - situations in which young people and their families resist or refuse forms of biomedical treatment for a range of cultural, religious, and political reasons. Standards of informed consent, \"best interests\", and child protection are central problematics in my research. They are also non-negotiable principles for the ethical conduct of research with human subjects. This presents what I am calling a \"dilemma of immanence,\" in which my research becomes structured and governed by the very same bioethics principles that I seek to interrogate. While many social scientists wrestle with IRB regulations, I argue that this specific dilemma may be particular to empirical bioethics research - particular because our research questions and objectives coincide with the IRB's own mandate.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"12 2","pages":"137-143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23294515.2020.1829744","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2020.1829744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores a dilemma that confronts empirical researchers who are interested in taking the field of bioethics itself as an object of study. Drawing inspiration and data from a recent Institutional Review Board (IRB) process, I discuss my current research, which explores the phenomenon of pediatric biomedical refusal - situations in which young people and their families resist or refuse forms of biomedical treatment for a range of cultural, religious, and political reasons. Standards of informed consent, "best interests", and child protection are central problematics in my research. They are also non-negotiable principles for the ethical conduct of research with human subjects. This presents what I am calling a "dilemma of immanence," in which my research becomes structured and governed by the very same bioethics principles that I seek to interrogate. While many social scientists wrestle with IRB regulations, I argue that this specific dilemma may be particular to empirical bioethics research - particular because our research questions and objectives coincide with the IRB's own mandate.

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
作为研究对象的生命伦理学:研究伦理审查的内在困境。
本文探讨了一个两难的问题,面临的经验研究者谁有兴趣把生命伦理学领域本身作为一个研究对象。从最近的机构审查委员会(IRB)过程中获得灵感和数据,我讨论了我目前的研究,该研究探讨了儿科生物医学拒绝现象-年轻人及其家庭出于一系列文化,宗教和政治原因抵制或拒绝各种形式的生物医学治疗的情况。知情同意标准、“最佳利益”和儿童保护是我研究中的核心问题。它们也是以人类为研究对象的伦理行为的不可协商的原则。这就呈现了我所谓的“内在困境”,在这种困境中,我的研究变得结构化,并受到我试图质疑的同样的生物伦理学原则的支配。当许多社会科学家纠结于伦理委员会的规定时,我认为这种特殊的困境可能是实证生物伦理学研究特有的——特别是因为我们的研究问题和目标与伦理委员会自己的任务一致。
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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
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