A Belmont Report for Animals?

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):19-37 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Abstract:Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Rethinking the Belmont Report?Phoebe Friesen, Lisa Kearns, Barbara Redman & Arthur L. Caplan - 2017 - American Journal of Bioethics 17 (7):15-21.
Vulnerable Subjects? The Case of Nonhuman Animals in Experimentation.Jane Johnson - 2013 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (4):497-504.
Research or clinical care: what’s the difference?Nina Hallowell - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (6):359-360.
Vulnerable populations in research: The case of the seriously ill.Philip J. Nickel - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (3):245-264.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-10-06

Downloads
141 (#131,262)

6 months
99 (#45,443)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Andrew Fenton
Dalhousie University
Jane Johnson
Macquarie University
L. Syd M Johnson
SUNY Upstate Medical University
1 more

References found in this work

What is it like to be a bat?Thomas Nagel - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (October):435-50.
A Belmont Report for Animals?Hope Ferdowsian, L. Syd M. Johnson, Jane Johnson, Andrew Fenton, Adam Shriver & John Gluck - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):19-37.
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.Aysha Akhtar - 2015 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (4):407-419.
Autonomy in chimpanzees.Tom L. Beauchamp & Victoria Wobber - 2014 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (2):117-132.

View all 16 references / Add more references