对公共利益的恐惧和对正义的忽视

A. London
{"title":"对公共利益的恐惧和对正义的忽视","authors":"A. London","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter traces the practical and conceptual origins of eight problematic commitments including the perception that there is an inherent moral dilemma at the heart of research with humans and the tendency to conceptualize research as a private transaction between researchers and participants without clear connections to the requirements of a just social order. It introduces readers who are new to research ethics to key cases and documents relating to domestic and international research and illustrates how they gave rise to the problematic views that produce conceptual and practical tensions in the field. The chapter frames the questions that will be addressed in subsequent chapters, including issues about research risk; the role of paternalism in research ethics; and requirements relating to responsiveness to host community health needs, the standard of care, and post-trial access in international research.","PeriodicalId":243716,"journal":{"name":"For the Common Good","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fear of the Common Good and the Neglect of Justice\",\"authors\":\"A. London\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter traces the practical and conceptual origins of eight problematic commitments including the perception that there is an inherent moral dilemma at the heart of research with humans and the tendency to conceptualize research as a private transaction between researchers and participants without clear connections to the requirements of a just social order. It introduces readers who are new to research ethics to key cases and documents relating to domestic and international research and illustrates how they gave rise to the problematic views that produce conceptual and practical tensions in the field. The chapter frames the questions that will be addressed in subsequent chapters, including issues about research risk; the role of paternalism in research ethics; and requirements relating to responsiveness to host community health needs, the standard of care, and post-trial access in international research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":243716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"For the Common Good\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"For the Common Good\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"For the Common Good","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197534830.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章追溯了八个有问题的承诺的实践和概念起源,包括在人类研究的核心存在固有的道德困境的看法,以及将研究概念化为研究人员和参与者之间的私人交易的趋势,而与公正的社会秩序的要求没有明确的联系。它向刚接触研究伦理学的读者介绍了与国内和国际研究有关的关键案例和文件,并说明了它们是如何引起有问题的观点的,这些观点在该领域产生了概念和实践上的紧张关系。本章框架的问题,将在后续章节中解决,包括研究风险的问题;家长式作风在研究伦理中的作用以及与响应东道国社区卫生需求、护理标准和国际研究中的试验后可及性有关的要求。
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
Fear of the Common Good and the Neglect of Justice
This chapter traces the practical and conceptual origins of eight problematic commitments including the perception that there is an inherent moral dilemma at the heart of research with humans and the tendency to conceptualize research as a private transaction between researchers and participants without clear connections to the requirements of a just social order. It introduces readers who are new to research ethics to key cases and documents relating to domestic and international research and illustrates how they gave rise to the problematic views that produce conceptual and practical tensions in the field. The chapter frames the questions that will be addressed in subsequent chapters, including issues about research risk; the role of paternalism in research ethics; and requirements relating to responsiveness to host community health needs, the standard of care, and post-trial access in international research.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Two Dogmas of Research Ethics The Anvil of Neglect and the Hammer of Exploitation Avoiding Justice: Research at the Auction Block The Common Good and the Egalitarian Research Imperative The Integrative Approach to Assessing and Managing Risk
×
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