DOCSLIB.ORG

Using the Beneficence Model As an Ethical Approach to Surgical Decision Making: a Case Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using the Beneficence Model As an Ethical Approach to Surgical Decision Making: a Case Report BCMD2B Using the beneficence model as an ethical approach to surgical decision making: A case report When faced with a request from a Jehovah’s Witness for a bloodless surgery, the surgical team should approach the case with an ethical framework in mind. Sofía Zhang-Jiang, BHSc, Stephen Tredwell, MD, MA, FRCSC ABSTRACT: Ethics-guided decision making in Introduction While the rightness of a decision is not dif- medicine should be approached with a sound Medical ethics ficult to determine in retrospect, evaluating the framework. To explore the efficacy of Pellegrino Ethics describes a moral philosophy that guides right course of action prospectively is no easy and Thomasma’s beneficence model in surgery, we a person’s actions. Health care professionals task for a clinician. Some common ethical di- present the case of a 14-year-old Jehovah’s Witness practise ethical thinking when making decisions lemmas in modern medicine include the abor- with scoliosis requesting a bloodless surgery in about patient management and are generally tion of a fetus and the interplay of end-of-life which the surgeon used the model to achieve a suc- influenced by Aristotle’s decisions and religious cessful outcome. The beneficence model outlines dictum of “first, do no beliefs, both situations four levels of good: the ultimate good, the good While the rightness harm.” The four pillars that prompt debates on of the patient as a person capable of reasoned of a decision is not that lay the foundation the extinguishment of life decision making, the patient’s perception of the for modern ethics are be- difficult to determine in and its associated spiritual patient’s best interests, and the medical good. The neficence, nonmaleficence, retrospect, evaluating consequences. surgeon and the patient each ranked the levels of autonomy, and justice.1 the right course of The ethical dilemma good to determine their respective overarching Current medical ethics that we discuss here cen- goods, and then discussed their perspectives to action prospectively borrows strongly from tres on a pediatric patient’s reach a decision that minimized conflict between is no easy task these concepts. The chal- refusal of blood products their overarching goods. Physicians involved in lenge with medical ethics for a clinician. due to the Jehovah’s Wit- decision making can apply the beneficence model lies in its clinical applica- ness faith, in which at first to examine ethically complex cases from a different tion, when multiple prin- glance the principle of au- perspective, rather than approaching the complex- ciples often appear to conflict, and none of the tonomy seems to conflict with medical benefi- ity simply as a conflict between the medical good four principles can be ranked as primary in ab- cence. We examine this clinical case through and the patient’s autonomy. 2 solute terms. Furthermore, each clinical case can Pellegrino and Thomasma’s beneficence model, be examined through different lenses that vary a medical adaptation of the third major ethi- cal philosophy—the Aristotelian doctrine of Ms Zhang-Jiang is a medical student at in their definition of the right course of action. “the good.” Pellegrino and Thomasma’s view the University of British Columbia (class Two major ethical philosophies that domi- features four components of the patient’s good: of 2022). She holds a Bachelor of Health nate medical ethics today emphasize a respect (1) the ultimate good, which represents the ul- Sciences degree from McMaster University. for persons and, flowing from that, individual timate standard for a person’s life choices; (2) Dr Tredwell is a professor emeritus in autonomy (Kantian) or social utility—specifi- the good of the patient as a person capable of the Department of Orthopaedics at the cally social good over the rights of the individual 2 reasoned decision making (i.e., autonomy); (3) University of British Columbia. (utilitarian). The first theory concerns itself with rights, duties, and obligations; the second the patient’s perception of their own good, or 2 best interests, in their current life situation; and This article has been peer reviewed. values social good and social accountability. 380 BC MEDICAL JOURNAL VOL. 62 NO. 10 | DECEMBER 2020 BCMD2B TABLE. Examples of questions that health care professionals may consider themselves, or ask a patient, to (4) the medical good as achieved through medi- clarify their levels of good. cal intervention to treat or manage a disease.2 The levels of good are listed in the descending Level of good Sample questions order of importance suggested by Pellegrino and “ What holds the highest meaning for you and constitutes the ultimate Thomasma. This view allows a stratification of standard for your life choices?” autonomy, less conflict, and a more thorough The ultimate good “ What is the most important determinant to your happiness; is it living discussion as part of clinical decision making. accordance with God’s will, developing your potential, honor, wealth, social utility, or something else?” The physician should approach the case with The good of the patient as a the four components of the patient’s good in “ What is your choice as a human being capable of reasoning and with person capable of reasoned freedom to express?” mind and ascertain the patient’s opinion on decision making each of them [Table]. When one or more levels “ What course of action is in line with your best interests given your current The perception of the of good conflict, a hierarchy should be deter- circumstances? patient’s own good in their mined among them to identify the overarching “ What quality of life is worthwhile or consistent with your life goals, aims, current life situation good. If, following the discussion, the medical and plans?” good is in direct conflict with a patient’s over- The medical good “ What is medically indicated for this disease or illness?” arching good, rethinking is needed. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs The Jehovah Witness Christian movement was for corrective surgery at age 12. His case was in the patient’s chart and was discussed with founded in the United States by Charles Rus- complicated by an additional diagnosis of se- the anesthesia team. sell in 1872 and has grown to over 6 million vere factor IX deficiency. As a result of factor Preoperative and perioperative procedures members worldwide.3 Members of this religion IX desensitization protocol, his scoliosis surgery implemented to maximize hemoglobin and hold a fundamental belief that “consumption” was delayed until age 14. Scoliosis surgery can minimize blood loss included erythropoietin, of blood is forbidden, as indicated by Biblical be associated with significant intraoperative oral iron supplement, recombinant factor IX passages such as: “Only flesh with its soul— blood loss of up to 4.5 L, and higher Cobb concentrate, and tranexamic acid. Surgical its blood—you must not eat” (Genesis 9:3-4); angles (severity of the curvature) are associated time for posterior fusion of spinal levels T2– 7,8 “[You must] pour its blood out and cover it with increased blood loss. It has been report- L1 was 4 hours. The use of monopolar cautery, with dust” (Leviticus 17:13-14); and “Abstain ed that Cobb angles greater than 50 degrees a local anesthetic solution of epinephrine, and from . fornication and from what is strangled increase the risk of massive blood loss 2.47 an argon gas coagulator optimized surgical 8 and from blood” (Acts 15:19-21).4,5 Jehovah’s times. This patient’s Cobb angle had increased hemostasis. Total intravenous fluid adminis- Witnesses interpret these verses as indicating to 65 to 70 degrees by age 14. The medical as- tered was 2700 mL and intraoperative blood prohibition of the transfusion of whole blood pects of this case have been described in more loss was estimated at 350 mL, with no blood 9 or its primary components (including packed detail in a previous case report. products given. No adverse events were noted red blood cells, white blood cells, plasma, and Prior to surgery, the surgeon consulted with in the patient’s postoperative care and the platelet administration) under any circumstance. the patient’s family and church elders together patient was discharged in stable condition Some Witnesses may accept secondary compo- using Pellegrino and Thomasma’s beneficence on day 11. nents such as albumin, immunoglobulins, and model as a framework. All parties agreed to hemophiliac preparations, as their use is not minimize the conflict between the patient’s Discussion absolutely prohibited.4-6 Furthermore, many and the surgeon’s overarching goods (see Ethi- Surgical outcomes Witnesses believe that blood that has been cal challenges below). The family refused the The ethical concern regarding Jehovah’s Wit- removed from the body should be disposed use of blood products during surgery due to ness patients’ refusal of blood products is not of; thus, techniques to remove and store the their religious beliefs. Strategies to maximize an uncommon issue in surgery. Although some patient’s own blood are often unacceptable.3,4 preoperative hemoglobin concentration and surgeons and anesthesiologists prefer to decline These patients pose a unique challenge to an- minimize perioperative blood loss were imple- surgeries on Witnesses, viewing the inability esthetic and surgical teams in cases in which mented, and the surgeon agreed to terminate to use blood products as tying their hands, a blood-free surgery is desired and the risk of the surgery should sufficient blood loss oc- there is an increasing number who are ready 3,4 significant blood loss is high. cur to require blood products. Blood transfu- to take on such cases. Advances in medical sions would be considered only in the case of a care have enabled more elective surgeries and Case report life-threatening intraoperative hemorrhage, and trauma cases to be performed without blood The patient was diagnosed with juvenile onset the family was not required to sign a transfu- transfusions, as requested by Witnesses, al- idiopathic scoliosis at age 10 and was scheduled sion consent form.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Research Involving Prisoners Albert J
    June 2005 Center for Mental Health Services Research Vol 2, Issue 6 University of Massachusetts Medical School Issue Brief Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Research Involving Prisoners Albert J. Grudzinskas, Jr., JD and Jonathan C. Clayfield, MA, LMHC he attitude that, “it is not cruel to inflict The Belmont Report identified three basic on a few criminals, sufferings which ethical principles critical to any research conducted may benefit multitudes of innocent with human subjects and, in particular, prisoners: T respect for persons, beneficence and justice. people through all centuries,” has prevailed in the area of research involving prisoners Respect for persons holds that each individual is through history.1 The very nature of incarceration autonomous and should be treated as free to make – controlled diet and living conditions, subject his or her own choices. The nature of prison, availability, etc. – make prisoners an attractive however, leads to restrictions on autonomy. For example, while paying subjects to participate population to study. There are, however, special in research is considered ethically acceptable, considerations when prisoners participate in prisoners may be unduly influenced or enticed research that must be addressed to ensure their by the monetary gain of participation given that protection as human subjects. This brief will prisoners typically earn far less for other “work” explore some of the issues critical to working activities. Careful consideration should be given with prisoners in research, will discuss the to an individual’s ability to make autonomous standards of informed consent and competency, decisions in light of the possible coercion inherent in a specific environment or setting.
    [Show full text]
  • A Philosophical Investigation of Principlism and the Implications Raised by the Treatment of the Mentally Ill
    Aporia vol. 24 no. 1—2014 A Philosophical Investigation of Principlism and the Implications Raised by the Treatment of the Mentally Ill BENJAMIN FOSTER Introduction he objective of this investigation is to identify reasonable and relevant problems and issues posed for Principlism by the mentally T ill. Two concepts of Principlism will be presented: a normative con- ceptualization of the bioethical theory and a descriptive conceptualization. In reference to both, two philosophical questions will be asked: can we know the natures of other minds and, if so, how? These two questions have theoretical and practical implications for the treatment of the mentally ill. And, in so far as the questions have implications for the treatment of the mentally ill, they have implications for the bioethical theory of Principlism. There is a lack of concurrence on the meaning, nature, and function of mental phenomena, producing conceptual difficulties concerning the common morality that provides Principlism its normative authority. Similarly, a contradiction appears to arise when one considers the imaginative leap of predicting another’s desires, feelings, and thoughts, a maneuver that professionals participating in the treatment of the mentally ill must perform. There is also significant ambiguity surrounding the concept of mental illness, which produces pragmatic problems when professionals attempt to diagnose and treat an individual in conjunction Benjamin Foster graduated with a degree in philosophy and a minor in biology from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. While there he served as president of the univer- sity’s philosophy club, The Socratic Society. His primary philosophical interests include ethics and epistemology. He currently plans to attend medical school.
    [Show full text]
  • Code Gray.Pub
    Written by Christine Mitchell, RN, FAAN and Ben Achtenberg with a historical commentary by Susan Reverby, PhD and assistance from Joan Sawyer and Karen Wolf, RN, MS Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 3 Background ............................................................................................3 Synopsis of the Film ..............................................................................3 Suggested Uses .......................................................................................4 Scheduling ..............................................................................................4 FILM AS A TOOL FOR DISCUSSION .......................................................4 WHAT IS NURSING ETHICS? ...................................................................5 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................5 SOME GENERAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ........................................6 CASE 1: BENEFICENCE ............................................................................7 Description of the Case .........................................................................7 The Principle: Beneficence ...................................................................7 Questions for Discussion ......................................................................8 CASE 2: AUTONOMY ................................................................................9 Description
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Two Bioethical Theories
    A Comparison of Two Bioethical Theories A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Gavin G. Enck June 2009 © 2009 Gavin G. Enck. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled A Comparison of Two Bioethical Theories by GAVIN G. ENCK has been approved for the Department of Philosophy and the College of Arts and Sciences by Arthur Zucker Associate Professor of Philosophy Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT ENCK, GAVIN G., M.A., June 2009, Philosophy A Comparison of Two Bioethical Theories (81 pp.) Director of Thesis: Arthur Zucker This thesis compares two bioethical theories in order to determine which theory is better for use by medical professionals. The two theories are Tom L. Beauchamp and James Childress’s “Principlism” and Bernard Gert, K. Danner Clouser, and Charles M. Culver’s “Moral Rules.” The structure of the paper is as follows: an explication of both theories, an examination of the similarities and differences between the theories, an evaluation of criticisms of both theories, and identification of the three advantages the Moral Rules theory has over Principlism. In the conclusion, I claim the Moral Rules is the better bioethical theory for the medical profession. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Arthur Zucker Associate Professor of Philosophy 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Human Research Participants NIH Office of Extramural Research Introduction
    Protecting Human Research Participants NIH Office of Extramural Research Introduction Research with human subjects can occasionally result in a dilemma for investigators. When the goals of the research are designed to make major contributions to a field, such as improving the understanding of a disease process or determining the efficacy of an intervention, investigators may perceive the outcomes of their studies to be more important than providing protections for individual participants in the research. Although it is understandable to focus on goals, our society values the rights and welfare of individuals. It is not considered ethical behavior to use individuals solely as means to an end. The importance of demonstrating respect for research participants is reflected in the principles used to define ethical research and the regulations, policies, and guidance that describe the implementation of those principles. Who? This course is intended for use by individuals involved in the design and/or conduct of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded human subjects research. What? This course is designed to prepare investigators involved in the design and/or conduct of research involving human subjects to understand their obligations to protect the rights and welfare of subjects in research. The course material presents basic concepts, principles, and issues related to the protection of research participants. Why? As a part of NIH's commitment to the protection of human subjects and its response to Federal mandates for increased emphasis on protection for human subjects in research, the NIH Office of Extramural Research released a policy on Required Education in the Protection of Human Research Participants in June 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Ethical Guidelines in Indian Biobanking
    Revised Ethical Guidelines In Indian Biobanking: Do We Need To Downregulate the Proposed Frameworks? Juhi Tayal1, Anurag Mehta2 and Alok Kumar1 1 Biorepository, Department of Research, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, India 2 Department of Laboratory Sciences and Molecular Diagnostics, RGCI&RC, India 1,2 Sec-5,Rohini, New Delhi, India-110085 Email: [email protected]/ [email protected] BACKGROUND Guideline for Indian Biobanks ABSTRACT • Clinical biobanks are gaining popularity in India and are also revolutionizing research. Indian • Biomedical research in India has revolutionized with the changing times. This Council for Medical Research(ICMR),Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and paradigm shift has not only bought greater complexities but also greater Department of Biotechnology (DBT) are the major agencies supporting research in India. The ICMR responsibilities for policy makers ,researchers and stakeholders. The is the national organization and also the apex body for developing ethical frameworks and guidelines advancement is not limited to basic research or clinical research ,it has now and also enforcing them. The ICMR issued the Policy Statement on Ethical Considerations Involved taken a foothold into Digital imaging and Artificial intelligence platforms as in Research on Human Subjects in 1980. Due to rapid advancement in biomedical sciences new well. ethical dimensions have emerged and nesseciated the updation of these guidelines time and again in • The aim of policy makers worldover was to safeguard four basic ethical 2000,2003, 2013 and very recently in 2017. The revision has introduced many new sections and principles for research involving human subjects: respect for persons, also revamped the existing sections .A new Section 11 was dedicated to Biological materials, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Unicef Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection and Analysis
    UNICEF PROCEDURE FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS IN RESEARCH, EVALUATION, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Document Number: CF/PD/DRP/2015-001 Effective Date: 01 April 2015 Issued by: Director, Division of Data, Research and Policy (DRP) I. Rationale To underpin its programmes, policy and advocacy work, UNICEF invests substantially in conducting, as well as commissioning, research, evaluation and data collection and analysis in order to create a strong evidence base to support the realization of the rights of every child, especially the most disadvantaged. In light of UNICEF’s strategic agenda to harness innovation and deepen and widen the evidence base to drive and sustain global progress towards the realization of children’s rights, ensuring ethical conduct in evidence generation is imperative. This is necessary both in its own right and as a significant contributor to ensuring quality and accountability in the evidence generation process, especially when it involves children. Ethical reflection and conduct in evidence generation is requisite in an equity based framework. A focus on the most marginalized, and frequently, the most vulnerable population groups necessitates measures to ensure that participants are respected and that they are protected throughout the process. Further, efforts must be taken not only to mitigate against risks to participants, but also to staff and to the organization as a whole.1 In order to ensure the protection of, and respect for, human and child rights within all research, evaluation and data collection processes undertaken or commissioned by UNICEF, this procedure is designed to achieve the following objectives: To establish minimum and binding standards for ethical research, evaluation and data collection and analysis processes in UNICEF globally; and To ensure effective processes and accountability for ethical oversight of these processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Ethics
    Medical Ethics Janyne Althaus, M.D., M.A. Dept. Gyn-Ob Div. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Hippocratic Oath 12th-century Byzantine manuscript of the Oath Late 5th Century B.C. Basic Principles of Medical Ethics 1. Non-maleficence 2. Beneficence 3. Autonomy 4. Justice Primum non nocere Bloodletting High Oxygen for respiratory distress in premature infants Healing should be the sole purpose of medicine, and that endeavors like cosmetic surgery, contraception & euthanasia fall beyond its purview. Jehovah’s Witnesses Primary Elective Cesareans Cosmetic Gynecology Counseling parents of 24 week fetus Neonatal Intensive Care Units Transplants Forced sterilization of mentally retarded in Virginia United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al. A sentence of death by hanging is pronounced by a US War Crimes Tribunal upon Adolf Hitler's personal physician, 43-year old Karl Brandt. Brandt was also Reich Commissar for Health and Sanitation. Of the 23 defendants, 7 were acquitted and 7 received death sentences; 9 received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment Peter Buxtun, PHS veneral disease investigator, the “whistleblower". •Conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932-1972 •600 Rural African-American men thought they were receiving free health care from the government. •By the end of the study in 1972, only 74 of the test subjects were alive. Of the original 399 men with syphilis, 28 had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected and 19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Ethical Aspects
    MEDICAL ETHICAL ASPECTS Eric van Roon – September 30 2017 – EAHP Academy Seminar CONFLICT OF INTEREST THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TO DECLARE QUESTIONS - Yes or no: respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice are the four principles for bioethics? - Yes or no: the framework of biomedical ethics is defined sharply - Yes or no: methodological issues may be grounds for non-accceptance of a study protocol for a research ethics committee ETHICAL DILEMMA - For a birthday you give a friend a ticket for the national lottery - You bought a ticket for yourself also - The next day you see that your friend forgot to take the ticket home - You won’t see your friend for the next two weeks - Before you can hand over the given ticket, the ticket of your friend receives a price of 150,000 EURO in the lottery; your ticket does not receive a price - Your friend doesn’t know the lottery results nor the number of the ticket you gave - What do you do? ETHICS Ethics: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 1 1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic (Visited July 3 2017 BIOETHICS - Application of ethics to the field of medicine, healthcare, biotechnology and ecology - No absolute standards - Standards are developed in time BIOETHICAL PRINCIPLES A.k.a. Georgetown mantra - Respect for autonomy - Non-maleficence - Beneficence - Justice http://medanth.wikispaces.com/Bioethics (visited July 3 2017) RESPECT FOR AUTONOMY - Right tot self-rule - Free from both ­ controlling interference by others and ­ from limitations, such as inadequate understanding, that prevent meaningful choice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conflict Between Autonomy and Beneficence in Medical Ethics: Proposal for a Resolution*
    Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) Volume 3 Issue 1 Article 7 1987 The Conflict between utA onomy and Beneficence in Medical Ethics: Proposal for a Resolution Edmund D. Pellegrino David C. Thomasma Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp Recommended Citation Edmund D. Pellegrino & David C. Thomasma, The Conflict between utA onomy and Beneficence in Medical Ethics: Proposal for a Resolution, 3 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 23 (1987). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol3/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN AUTONOMY AND BENEFICENCE IN MEDICAL ETHICS: PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION* Edmund D. Pellegrino, M.D. ** and David C. Thomasma, Ph.D. * I INTRODUCTION Three radical changes have occurred in the ancient edifice of medical eth- ics in the last two decades. Each promises to transform the nature of the physician-patient relationship with repercussions in the domains of law, soci- ety, and ethics. Each merits the most careful scrutiny by the profession and the public, because how we resolve the moral dilemmas they produce will determine not only our relationships with the medical profession, but what kind of society we are, or wish to be. The three changes we consider most crucial are these: 1)
    [Show full text]
  • Principles — Respect, Justice, Nonmaleficence, Beneficence
    Principles — Respect, Justice, Nonmaleficence, Beneficence The focus of this perspective is on the four PRINCIPLES supported by or compromised by the question or issue at hand. Philosophers Tom Beauchamp and Jim Childress identify four principles that form a commonly held set of pillars for moral life. Respect for Persons/Autonomy Acknowledge a person’s right to make choices, to hold views, and to take actions based on personal values and beliefs Justice Treat others equitably, distribute benefits/burdens fairly. Nonmaleficence (do no harm) Obligation not to inflict harm intentionally; In medical ethics, the physician’s guiding maxim is “First, do no harm.” Beneficence (do good) Provide benefits to persons and contribute to their welfare. Refers to an action done for the benefit of others. • Draws on principles or pillars that are a part of American life – familiar to most people, although not by their philosophical term • Compatible with both outcome-based and duty-based theories (respect for persons and justice are duty-based, while nonmaleficence and beneficence are outcome-based). • Provides useful and fairly specific action guidelines • Offers an approach that is appropriate for general bioethics and clinical ethics • Requires weighing and balancing – flexible, responsive to particular situations • Lacks a unifying moral theory that ties the principles together to provide guidelines • Principles can conflict and the theory provides no decision-making procedure to resolve these conflicts • Difficult to weigh and balance various principles • Autonomy in some cultures refers to individual autonomy, while in others refers to group/family/community autonomy Adapted with permission from Laura Bishop, Ph.D., Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University 21.
    [Show full text]
  • Protection of Human Subjects Belmont Report
    PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS BELMONT REPORT: ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS OF RESEARCH Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Table of Contents Summary Members of the Commission The Belmont Report: An Introduction Boundaries Between Practice and Research Basic Ethical Principles Respect for Persons Beneficence Justice Applications Informed Consent Assessment of Risk and Benefits Selection of Subjects Summary On July 12, 1974, the National Research Act (Public Law 93348) was signed into law, thereby creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. One of the charges to the Commission was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects, and to develop guidelines, which should be followed to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles. In carrying out the above, the Commission was directed to consider: (I) the boundaries between biomedical and behavioral research and the accepted and routine practice of medicine, (ii) the role of assessment of risk-benefit criteria in the determination of the appropriateness of research involving human subjects, (iii) appropriate guidelines for the selection of human subjects for participation in such research, and (iv) the nature and definition of informed consent in various research settings. The Belmont Report attempts to summarize the basic ethical principles identified by the Commission in the course of its deliberations. It is the outgrowth of an intensive four-day period of discussions that were held in February 1976 at the Smithsonian Institution's Belmont Conference Center, supplemented by the monthly deliberations of the Commission that were held over a period of nearly four years.
    [Show full text]