Ruth Macklin

Bioethics, Vulnerability, and Protection

What makes individuals, groups, or even entire countries vulnerable? And why is vulnerability a concern in bioethics? A simple answer to both questions is that vulnerable individuals and groups are subject to exploitation, and exploitation is morally wrong. This analysis is limited to two areas. First is the context of multinational research, in which vulnerable people can be exploited even if they are not harmed, and harmed even if they are not exploited. The type of multinational research likely to raise the most ethical concerns is that in which the investigators or sponsors are from a powerful industrialised country or a giant pharmaceutical company and the research is conducted in a developing country. Second is the situation of women, who are made vulnerable in cultural settings or in entire countries in which they are oppressed and powerless. In the face of cultural values and practices, or governmental policies, these women suffer serious consequences for their health and even lives. Examples are provided, and it is suggested that in some cases vulnerable individuals can be harmed but not exploited. On the positive side, recent developments reveal a new awareness of exploitation and efforts to enhance the ability of developing countries to protect themselves and their citizens from exploitation at the hands of powerful sponsors of research. In addition, human rights principles are increasingly being used to monitor the actions (or inaction) of governments regarding womens reproductive rights and vulnerability with respect to HIV/AIDS, and to take remedial actions.

After Helsinki: Unresolved Issues in International Research

Following a long process of revision, a new version of the Declaration of Helsinki was approved by the World Medical Association in 2000. Two provisions of the Declaration address ongoing international controversies regarding research sponsored by industrialized countries and conducted in developing countries. Despite the issuance of the final version of the Declaration, opponents remain locked in debate. Moreover, the Declaration remained silent on other prominent controversies concerning international research. An analysis of these current controversies reveals reasons why they are not likely to be readily resolved, despite apparent agreement by opponents on overarching ethical principles.

Practical approaches to incidental findings in brain imaging research.

A decade of empirical work in brain imaging, genomics, and other areas of research has yielded new knowledge about the frequency of incidental findings, investigator responsibility, and risks and benefits of disclosure. Straightforward guidance for handling such findings of possible clinical significance, however, has been elusive. In early work focusing on imaging studies of the brain, we suggested that investigators and institutional review boards must anticipate and articulate plans for handling incidental findings. Here we provide a detailed analysis of different approaches to the problem and evaluate their merits in the context of the goals and setting of the research and the involvement of neurologists, radiologists, and other physicians. Protecting subject welfare and privacy, as well as ensuring scientific integrity, are the highest priorities in making choices about how to handle incidental findings. Forethought and clarity will enable these goals without overburdening research conducted within or outside the medical setting.

Applying the four principles

Gillon is correct that the four principles provide a sound and useful way of analysing moral dilemmas. As he observes, the approach using these principles does not provide a unique solution to dilemmas. This can be illustrated by alternatives to Gillon’s own analysis of the four case scenarios. In the first scenario, a different set of factual assumptions could yield a different conclusion about what is required by the principle of beneficence. In the second scenario, although Gillon’s conclusion is correct, what is open to question is his claim that what society regards as the child’s best interest determines what really is in the child’s best interest. The third scenario shows how it may be reasonable for the principle of beneficence to take precedence over autonomy in certain circumstances, yet like the first scenario, the ethical conclusion relies on a set of empirical assumptions and predictions of what is likely to occur. The fourth scenario illustrates how one can draw different conclusions based on the importance given to the precautionary principle.

The OHRP and SUPPORT - Another view

A group of physicians, bioethicists, and scholars in allied fields agrees with the Office for Human Research Protections about the informed-consent documents in SUPPORT.

The new conservatives in bioethics: who are they and what do they seek?

A new political movement has arisen in bioethics, self-consciously distingushed from the rest of the field and characterized by a new way of writing and arguing. Unfortunately, that new method is mean-spirited, mystical, and emotional. It claims insight into ultimate truth yet disavows reason.

The Inner Workings of an Ethics Committee: Latest Battle over Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovahs Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds have long created ethical dilemmas for those in the medical profession trying to serve them. A bioethicist working in a clinical setting explores how one hospital ethics committee grappled with the additional problem of pregnant Jehovahs Witnesses, including the complex interdependence of maternal and fetal rights.

Given Financial Constraints, It Would Be Unethical To Divert Antiretroviral Drugs From Treatment To Prevention

Striking advances in HIV prevention have set the stage for renewed debate on setting priorities in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Two new prevention strategies--preexposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention--use antiretroviral drugs for prevention of HIV/AIDS in addition to treating patients. The potential for success of these new prevention strategies sets up an ethical dilemma: where resources are limited and supplies of lifesaving antiretroviral medications are insufficient to treat those currently living with HIV, how should these resources be divided between treatment and prevention? This article explores several ethical principles used in formulating public health policy. Assuming that limited resources are available for spending on drugs, we conclude that it would be unethical to watch patients with treatable AIDS worsen and die, even with supportive care, so that medications for treatment can be diverted for prevention.

Informed consent and standard of care: what must be disclosed.

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) was correct in determining that the consent forms for the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored SUPPORT study were seriously flawed. Several articles defended the consent forms and criticized the OHRPs actions. Disagreement focuses on three central issues: (1) how risks and benefits should be described in informed consent documents; (2) the meaning and application of the concept of “standard of care” in the context of research; and (3) the proper role of OHRP. Examination of the consent forms reveals that they failed to disclose the reasonably foreseeable risks of the experimental interventions in the study, as well as the potential for differences in the degree of risk between these interventions. Although the concept of “standard of care” may be helpful in determining the ethical acceptability of other aspects of research, such as clinical equipoise, it is not helpful in discussing consent requirements.

Splitting Embryos on the Slippery Slope: Ethics and Public Policy

Neither the George Washington University embryo splitting experiment nor the technique of embryo splitting itself has ethical flaws. The experiment harmed or wronged no one, and the investigators followed intramural review procedures for the experiment, although some might fault them for failing to seek extramural consultation or for not waiting until national guidelines for research on preembryos were developed. Ethical objections to such cloning on the basis of possible loss of individuality, possible lessening of individual worth, and concern about potential harm to the resulting children are discussed and challenged, as are objections to the creation of embryos for the purpose of genetic diagnosis. Many of the ethical questions raised by the George Washington experiment are similar to those posed by existing reproductive technologies that allow the simultaneous production of several embryos. A multidisciplinary group should consider whether regulation of cloning is needed, and laws should be enacted to prohibit a commercial market for all frozen embryos.