研究团队与参与者的关系能否构成辅助护理义务的基础?

Q2 Social Sciences Ethics & human research Pub Date : 2023-01-23 DOI:10.1002/eahr.500152
Henry S. Richardson
{"title":"研究团队与参与者的关系能否构成辅助护理义务的基础?","authors":"Henry S. Richardson","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Discussion of medical researcher teams' ancillary-care obligations has long been dominated by partial-entrustment theory, developed in 2004 by the author of this article, in collaboration with Leah Belsky. Critics of the limited scope of the special ancillary-care obligations defended by that theory, however, argue that a better theory would take fuller account of the relationship that develops between individual research participants and members of the research team. Nate W. Olson and Thaddeus Metz have each put forward well worked-out versions of such a relationship-based account of ancillary-care obligations. This article critically evaluates these accounts, concluding that while each of them is vulnerable to various criticisms, each also crucially facilitates understanding of this relationship: Olson brings out well how research participants can find that role not just beneficial but also deeply meaningful, and Metz, drawing on African ethical traditions, emphasizes that when things go well, participants are involved as partners in the research effort. Yet the article closes by arguing that the partial-entrustment theory, surprisingly, can take on board each of these lessons. As so enhanced, it may actually be the best available relationship-based theory of this subject.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"45 1","pages":"2-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can the Research Team-Participant Relationship Ground Ancillary-Care Obligations?\",\"authors\":\"Henry S. Richardson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Discussion of medical researcher teams' ancillary-care obligations has long been dominated by partial-entrustment theory, developed in 2004 by the author of this article, in collaboration with Leah Belsky. Critics of the limited scope of the special ancillary-care obligations defended by that theory, however, argue that a better theory would take fuller account of the relationship that develops between individual research participants and members of the research team. Nate W. Olson and Thaddeus Metz have each put forward well worked-out versions of such a relationship-based account of ancillary-care obligations. This article critically evaluates these accounts, concluding that while each of them is vulnerable to various criticisms, each also crucially facilitates understanding of this relationship: Olson brings out well how research participants can find that role not just beneficial but also deeply meaningful, and Metz, drawing on African ethical traditions, emphasizes that when things go well, participants are involved as partners in the research effort. Yet the article closes by arguing that the partial-entrustment theory, surprisingly, can take on board each of these lessons. As so enhanced, it may actually be the best available relationship-based theory of this subject.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"2-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

长期以来,关于医学研究团队的辅助护理义务的讨论一直由部分委托理论主导,该理论由本文作者与Leah Belsky于2004年合作提出。然而,对该理论所捍卫的特殊辅助照顾义务范围有限的批评人士认为,更好的理论应该更全面地考虑个体研究参与者和研究团队成员之间发展起来的关系。内特·w·奥尔森(Nate W. Olson)和塞迪厄斯·梅斯(Thaddeus Metz)都提出了这种基于关系的辅助护理义务的详细版本。本文对这些描述进行了批判性的评估,得出的结论是,尽管它们中的每一个都容易受到各种批评,但每一个都至关重要地促进了对这种关系的理解:奥尔森很好地揭示了研究参与者如何发现这个角色不仅有益而且意义深远,而梅茨则借鉴了非洲的伦理传统,强调当事情进展顺利时,参与者作为合作伙伴参与到研究工作中来。然而,文章在结尾处提出,令人惊讶的是,部分委托理论可以吸收这些教训。经过如此强化,它实际上可能是这一主题中最好的基于关系的理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Can the Research Team-Participant Relationship Ground Ancillary-Care Obligations?

Discussion of medical researcher teams' ancillary-care obligations has long been dominated by partial-entrustment theory, developed in 2004 by the author of this article, in collaboration with Leah Belsky. Critics of the limited scope of the special ancillary-care obligations defended by that theory, however, argue that a better theory would take fuller account of the relationship that develops between individual research participants and members of the research team. Nate W. Olson and Thaddeus Metz have each put forward well worked-out versions of such a relationship-based account of ancillary-care obligations. This article critically evaluates these accounts, concluding that while each of them is vulnerable to various criticisms, each also crucially facilitates understanding of this relationship: Olson brings out well how research participants can find that role not just beneficial but also deeply meaningful, and Metz, drawing on African ethical traditions, emphasizes that when things go well, participants are involved as partners in the research effort. Yet the article closes by arguing that the partial-entrustment theory, surprisingly, can take on board each of these lessons. As so enhanced, it may actually be the best available relationship-based theory of this subject.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Issue Information (Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance Ethical Considerations for Conducting Community-Engaged Research with Women Experiencing Homelessness and Incarcerated Women Investigating Moral Distress in Clinical Research Professionals—A Deep Dive into Troubled Waters Issue Information
×
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