China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Health Professionals and Historic Human Research Ethics
Published in Howard Winet, Ethics for Bioengineering Scientists, 2021
In 1975 the U.S. military declassified the Nuremberg Code (Murphy 2004). The NCPHSBBR now had access to a worked out set of standards and could include them in their report. It came out in 1978 as the Belmont Report. Rather than follow the Nuremberg Code formula, the Belmont Report set out three main criteria for ethically evaluating research using human subjects.
Healthcare decision-making
Published in Joseph Tham, Alberto García Gómez, Mirko Daniel Garasic, Cross-Cultural and Religious Critiques of Informed Consent, 2021
Joseph Tham, Marie Catherine Letendre
By the 1970s, bioethics emerged to seriously address a number of critical issues brought on by technology and human experimentation. The Belmont Report resulted from an examination of ethical principles and intended to apply guidelines for informed consent, risk–benefit assessment and selections of subjects. The four principles of biomedical ethics, autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, provided a theoretical framework for practical decision-making.4 Principlism, as it came to be known, was routinely praised as often as it was thoroughly criticized. Despite the intent of the four principles to carry equal ethical importance in balancing judgements, autonomy appeared to triumph over the other principles.5
Research in prison
Published in Joanne Brooke, Dementia in Prison, 2020
The DHEW Report (1976) was followed by the Belmont Report (Office for Human Research Protection, 1979). The Belmont Report was written by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research. The commission was charged with identifying the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioural research involving any human subjects (not just prisoners) and developing specific guidelines to ensure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles, building on the recommendations set out in the DHEW Report (1976). The report was informed by monthly discussions that spanned four years and an intensive four days of deliberation in 1976. The commission published the Belmont Report in 1979, which identifies basic ethical principles and guidelines that address ethical issues arising from the conduct of research with human subjects.
Group Solidarity Versus Individual Autonomy in Research Involving American Indian/Alaskan Native Communities
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2021
I agree with Saunkeah and colleagues (2021) that sovereignty and solidarity are useful concepts for thinking about the ethics of research with AI/AN communities, and I support the idea of applying the Belmont Report to human research issues not anticipated by the authors of this influential document. However, I am concerned that it may be difficult to reconcile group sovereignty and solidarity with respect for individual autonomy in some situations. The Belmont Report was published in 1979, long before it was widely recognized that populations and communities should be protected in research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical or Behavioral Research 1979; Weijer and Emanuel 2000). Because the report focused on protecting individuals rather than groups, extending its principles to communities may be problematic, because communities are composed of individuals with diverse values, interests, and beliefs, which creates the potential for moral conflicts between group interests and individual autonomy.
Beyond the Belmont Report
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2021
Wamia Siddiqui, Richard R. Sharp
To appreciate the limitations of the Belmont Report as a guide to the ethical conduct of research involving tribal communities, it is important to revisit its historical origins. The Belmont Report was authored by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (Carroll and Gutmann 2011; National Institutes of Health n.d.). The National Commission was established in 1974, in the aftermath of the Tuskegee Syphilis study. In that historical context, it is easy to understand the Commission’s call for greater transparency about the conduct of biomedical research and the importance that it assigned to individual rights—including the right to be informed about the terms of research participation and be given the option to decline participation (Brothers et al. 2019; Carroll and Gutmann 2011; Cragoe 2019; Quinn, Kass, and Thomas 2013). The Belmont Report was undoubtedly shaped by the worldviews of the eleven individuals on the National Commission, which included lawyers, physicians, researchers, bioethicists, and a civil rights advocate (Carroll and Gutmann 2011). Many of these individuals held academic positions at prominent research universities, which likely contributed to favorable attitudes about the importance of pursuing new knowledge through scientific research (Carroll and Gutmann 2011).
Demystifying Zoophilia: Classification and Psychological Aspects of Humans Having Sexual Relationships with Animals
Published in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2021
Lisa Emmett, Lisa Klamert, Birgit U. Stetina
This study was based upon the recommendations of the 1979 Belmont Report, which includes the following three basic ethical principles: (1) respect for persons, (2) Beneficence and (3) Justice. (1) First, a detailed description and informed consent were part of the online survey. Administrators and platform operators of the targeted English- and German-speaking zoophile online platforms were contacted beforehand by the researchers and were given the opportunity to get familiar with the content the instruments and the specific questions used in the study. (2) Second, the use of a non-forced choice format (questions can be left out) for the entire survey along with a respectful and open establishment of contact from the researcher´s side reduced possible concerns of participants being used as research subjects and created a cooperative and appreciative atmosphere. (3) Third, the ethical committee of the university approved the implementation of this study. Therefore, data were collected anonymously through online forums for zoophiles.