Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (2):99 – 116 (2007)

Authors
Alex John London
Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract
This article argues that lingering uncertainty about the normative foundations of research ethics is perpetuated by two unfounded dogmas of research ethics. The first dogma is that clinical research, as a social activity, is an inherently utilitarian endeavor. The second dogma is that an acceptable framework for research ethics must impose constraints on this endeavor whose moral force is grounded in role-related obligations of either physicians or researchers. This article argues that these dogmas are common to traditional articulations of the equipoise requirement and to recently articulated alternatives, such as the non-exploitation approach. Moreover, important shortcomings of these approaches can be traced to their acceptance of these dogmas. After highlighting these shortcomings, this article illustrates the benefits of rejecting these dogmas by sketching the broad outlines of an alternative called the "integrative approach" to clinical research
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/03605310701255727
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,564
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection.Katherine Witte Saylor & Douglas MacKay - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (2):5-19.

View all 17 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
27 ( #427,761 of 2,533,483 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #261,612 of 2,533,483 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes