Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Case for Evidence-Based Rulemaking”

American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):1-3 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Here I inquire into the status of the rules promulgated in the canonical pronouncements on human subjects research, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report. The question is whether they are ethical rules or rules of policy. An ethical rule is supposed to accurately reflect the ethical fact, whereas rules of policy are implemented to achieve a goal. We should be skeptical, I argue, that the actions prescribed by the rules are ethically obligatory, and consequently we should focus our attention on how to craft the rules so as to promote the legitimate goals of human subjects research. Unfortunately, this cannot be done without evidence about the likely effects of various candidate policies—evidence we currently lack. Therefore, we should take the rules as mere starting points, subject to revision as the evidence comes in.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,408

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

Response to open Peer commentaries on “why treat the wounded?”.Michael L. Gross - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2):W1 – W3.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
15 (#798,602)

6 months
2 (#640,495)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Benjamin Sachs
New York University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations