Protected from harm, harmed by protection: ethical consequences of the exclusion of pregnant participants from clinical trials

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2023-07-25 DOI:10.1177/17470161231189843
R. Zur
{"title":"Protected from harm, harmed by protection: ethical consequences of the exclusion of pregnant participants from clinical trials","authors":"R. Zur","doi":"10.1177/17470161231189843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pregnancy is a frequently applied exclusion criteria for many forms of research. Common justifications for this exclusion include the potential for teratogenicity, as well as the potential for physiologic changes in pregnancy to impact the research itself. The systematic exclusion of pregnant persons from clinical studies has created a significant gap in knowledge regarding medication safety and efficacy in pregnancy, which continues to cause significant harm to pregnant persons in need of medical therapy. To produce meaningful data and facilitate effective knowledge translation to the clinical setting, special consideration to the pharmacology of pregnancy, as well as to outcomes of concern for this population is essential. The exclusion of pregnant participants from research is not ethically justifiable, as it violates the principles of autonomy, justice and nonmaleficence. While the inclusion of pregnant patients in research presents it’s own challenges, with appropriate methodological, ethical, and clinical considerations, we may be able to narrow the knowledge gap and improve drug availability and safety for pregnant patients and their children.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"536 - 545"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231189843","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pregnancy is a frequently applied exclusion criteria for many forms of research. Common justifications for this exclusion include the potential for teratogenicity, as well as the potential for physiologic changes in pregnancy to impact the research itself. The systematic exclusion of pregnant persons from clinical studies has created a significant gap in knowledge regarding medication safety and efficacy in pregnancy, which continues to cause significant harm to pregnant persons in need of medical therapy. To produce meaningful data and facilitate effective knowledge translation to the clinical setting, special consideration to the pharmacology of pregnancy, as well as to outcomes of concern for this population is essential. The exclusion of pregnant participants from research is not ethically justifiable, as it violates the principles of autonomy, justice and nonmaleficence. While the inclusion of pregnant patients in research presents it’s own challenges, with appropriate methodological, ethical, and clinical considerations, we may be able to narrow the knowledge gap and improve drug availability and safety for pregnant patients and their children.
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
保护免受伤害,被保护伤害:将怀孕参与者排除在临床试验之外的伦理后果
怀孕是许多研究中经常使用的排除标准。这种排除的常见理由包括潜在的致畸性,以及怀孕期间的生理变化可能影响研究本身。系统地将孕妇排除在临床研究之外,造成了妊娠期药物安全性和有效性知识的重大空白,继续对需要药物治疗的孕妇造成重大伤害。为了产生有意义的数据和促进有效的知识转化到临床设置,特别考虑怀孕的药理学,以及对这一人群的关注结果是必不可少的。将怀孕参与者排除在研究之外在伦理上是不合理的,因为它违反了自主、公正和无害的原则。虽然将怀孕患者纳入研究本身就存在挑战,但通过适当的方法、伦理和临床考虑,我们可能能够缩小知识差距,提高怀孕患者及其子女的药物可用性和安全性。
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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach
×
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