Rethinking Benefits in Health Research, Reflections of an Ethics Committee.

IF 2.5 3区 工程技术 Q2 BIOLOGY Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine Pub Date : 2022-09-30 eCollection Date: 2022-09-01
Liliana Mondragón Barrios, Gabriela Ariadna Martínez Levy, Adriana Díaz-Anzaldúa, Erika Estrada Camarena
{"title":"Rethinking Benefits in Health Research, Reflections of an Ethics Committee.","authors":"Liliana Mondragón Barrios,&nbsp;Gabriela Ariadna Martínez Levy,&nbsp;Adriana Díaz-Anzaldúa,&nbsp;Erika Estrada Camarena","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The principle of beneficence in health research implies the effort of researchers to minimize risk to participants and maximize benefits to participants and society, which could be considered an abstract definition. Therefore, the benefits are not easily conceived by researchers who fail to achieve their goal, which is to privilege the well-being of participants. The purpose of this work was to describe and discuss the theoretical elements that support the principle of beneficence so that their knowledge allows designing and granting adequate benefits to participants. The present document defines the principle of beneficence. It also analyzes the maximization of benefits, the distinctions between different classifications of benefits, and the differentiation from compensations or incentives. With all this information, researchers must do a critical deliberation to select adequate benefits for participants of their studies, considering the type of study, potential participants, probability of risk, among others. These benefits should not be understood as a charity that researchers grant to the participant; they should be conceived as any form of action in favor of the well-being of participants. Participants must always be considered as moral agents, responsible for deciding whether the benefits would outweigh the possible negative unintended consequences of a particular study. Finally, no risk should be taken if it is not commensurate or proportional to the benefit of the research study.</p>","PeriodicalId":48617,"journal":{"name":"Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/29/88/yjbm_95_3_389.PMC9511940.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The principle of beneficence in health research implies the effort of researchers to minimize risk to participants and maximize benefits to participants and society, which could be considered an abstract definition. Therefore, the benefits are not easily conceived by researchers who fail to achieve their goal, which is to privilege the well-being of participants. The purpose of this work was to describe and discuss the theoretical elements that support the principle of beneficence so that their knowledge allows designing and granting adequate benefits to participants. The present document defines the principle of beneficence. It also analyzes the maximization of benefits, the distinctions between different classifications of benefits, and the differentiation from compensations or incentives. With all this information, researchers must do a critical deliberation to select adequate benefits for participants of their studies, considering the type of study, potential participants, probability of risk, among others. These benefits should not be understood as a charity that researchers grant to the participant; they should be conceived as any form of action in favor of the well-being of participants. Participants must always be considered as moral agents, responsible for deciding whether the benefits would outweigh the possible negative unintended consequences of a particular study. Finally, no risk should be taken if it is not commensurate or proportional to the benefit of the research study.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新思考健康研究的利益,伦理委员会的反思。
健康研究中的慈善原则意味着研究人员努力使参与者的风险最小化,使参与者和社会的利益最大化,这可以被认为是一个抽象的定义。因此,那些未能实现其目标的研究人员不容易设想这些好处,这是参与者的福利。这项工作的目的是描述和讨论支持慈善原则的理论要素,以便他们的知识允许设计和给予参与者足够的利益。本文件界定了慈善原则。它还分析了利益最大化,不同类别的利益之间的区别,以及与补偿或激励的区别。有了所有这些信息,研究人员必须认真考虑研究类型、潜在参与者、风险概率等因素,为研究参与者选择足够的利益。这些好处不应该被理解为研究人员给予参与者的慈善;它们应被视为有利于参与者福祉的任何形式的行动。参与者必须始终被视为道德行为者,负责决定某项特定研究的好处是否会超过可能的负面意外后果。最后,如果风险与研究的益处不相称或不成比例,则不应承担风险。
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
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine
Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine (YJBM) is a graduate and medical student-run, peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to the publication of original research articles, scientific reviews, articles on medical history, personal perspectives on medicine, policy analyses, case reports, and symposia related to biomedical matters. YJBM is published quarterly and aims to publish articles of interest to both physicians and scientists. YJBM is and has been an internationally distributed journal with a long history of landmark articles. Our contributors feature a notable list of philosophers, statesmen, scientists, and physicians, including Ernst Cassirer, Harvey Cushing, Rene Dubos, Edward Kennedy, Donald Seldin, and Jack Strominger. Our Editorial Board consists of students and faculty members from Yale School of Medicine and Yale University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. All manuscripts submitted to YJBM are first evaluated on the basis of scientific quality, originality, appropriateness, contribution to the field, and style. Suitable manuscripts are then subject to rigorous, fair, and rapid peer review.
期刊最新文献
Retraction: Setting the Stage for Cancer: Stay Soft and Optimistic. Cancer to Cataracts: The Mechanistic Impact of Aldo-Keto Reductases in Chronic Diseases. Chronic Pain and Joint Hypermobility: A Brief Diagnostic Review for Clinicians and the Potential Application of Infrared Thermography in Screening Hypermobile Inflamed Joints. Combating Chronic Disease with Barbershop Health Interventions: A Review of Current Knowledge and Potential for Big Data. Examining the Impact of Social Support on Psychological Well-Being Among Canadian Individuals With COPD: Implications for Government Policies.
×
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