DOCSLIB.ORG

Applying the Four Principles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Applying the Four Principles 275 J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.29.5.275 on 30 September 2003. Downloaded from FESTSCHRIFT Applying the four principles R Macklin ............................................................................................................................. J Med Ethics 2003;29:275–280 Gillon is correct that the four principles provide a sound a physician and therefore, constitutes a course of and useful way of analysing moral dilemmas. As he action. The related principle of beneficence, which calls for maximising benefits and minimising observes, the approach using these principles does not harms, could also be used in support of the physi- provide a unique solution to dilemmas. This can be cian’s duty to administer a blood transfusion in illustrated by alternatives to Gillon’s own analysis of the contravention of a patient’s refusal. If this is all that can be said about an analysis four case scenarios. In the first scenario, a different set that relies on the four principles, this method- of factual assumptions could yield a different conclusion ology could yield no clear resolution of the physi- about what is required by the principle of beneficence. cian’s dilemma. One reason no resolution is forthcoming is, as Gillon has pointed out, that In the second scenario, although Gillon’s conclusion is “the four principles approach does not provide a correct, what is open to question is his claim that what method for choosing”.2 The principles are not a set of ordered rules with instructions for making society regards as the child’s best interest determines inferences and arriving at deductive conclusions. what really is in the child’s best interest. The third One of the common (and misguided) criticisms of scenario shows how it may be reasonable for the the four principles is that they constitute a deductive system and therefore, presumably, a principle of beneficence to take precedence over rigid method for arriving at solutions to complex autonomy in certain circumstances, yet like the first ethical dilemmas. A quite different criticism of scenario, the ethical conclusion relies on a set of the method makes the opposite point, finding it deficient because it does not yield clear answers to empirical assumptions and predictions of what is likely troubling moral quandaries. to occur. The fourth scenario illustrates how one can As Gillon notes, moral agents have to come to draw different conclusions based on the importance their own answers, using their preferred moral theories, and at the same time consider the set of given to the precautionary principle. common moral commitments provided by the .......................................................................... four principles.2 Since I am in substantial agreement with Gillon on the soundness and http://jme.bmj.com/ utility of the four principles, I reject both s one who endorses the approach using the criticisms: that the method is unacceptable four principles, I maintain that they are because it is inflexible, and that the principles are Aalways in need of interpretation and useless because they fail to provide a unique solu- further analysis. Moreover, problems may lurk tion to moral dilemmas. when applying them to specific cases. I shall com- Gillon’s resolution of this dilemma brings the ment on each of the four scenarios in turn. allegedly conflicting principles of respect for persons and beneficence into congruence. It is clear (at least on September 25, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. THE “STANDARD” JEHOVAH’S WITNESS prima facie) that respect for persons requires the CASE physician to accede to the patient’s refusal of a A traditional approach to the four principles blood transfusion. What about the balance of might view the “standard” Jehovah’s Witness benefits and harms? According to the patient’s case as a prominent example of a conflict of ethi- calculus of values, the harm resulting from cal principles.1 A competent adult patient is receiving a transfusion (denial of eternal salva- refusing a treatment that has the best chance of tion) is greater than the harm caused by refusing saving his life, according to well documented the transfusion (the end of mortal life on earth). studies published in medical journals. Arguably, this is a rational calculation for anyone Nevertheless, the respect for persons principle man- who believes in the metaphysical scheme of the ....................... dates that physicians should comply with the Jehovah’s Witness faith. If one has to choose expressed wishes of a competent adult patient between eternal salvation and a few more years of Correspondence to: even if the predicted consequences are unfavour- Professor R Macklin, mortal life in which one is merely “passing Department of able or grave. Arguably, two ethical principles through,” the choice of eternal salvation appears Epidemiology and could support the opposite judgment: that the rational. From the perspective of the Jehovah’s Population Health, Albert physician may—or must—seek to override the Witness, refusal of a blood transfusion has a Einstein College of patient’s refusal of a blood transfusion. The prin- favourable balance of benefits over harms. Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Ave, Bronx, New York ciple of nonmaleficence requires physicians to avoid Gillon argues, further, that the expense of a 10463, USA; harm, whenever possible, so withholding a non-blood alternative treatment is not so great as [email protected] proven, beneficial treatment is likely to have the to warrant overriding the patient’s wishes based consequence of producing harm. Although with- 1 Accepted for publication on a financial cost benefit assessment. Finally, 25 June 2003 holding a treatment is an omission rather than an rights based justice and legal justice are on the ....................... action, it represents a deliberate decision taken by side of honouring the patient’s wishes, so all three www.jmedethics.com 276 Macklin J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/jme.29.5.275 on 30 September 2003. Downloaded from principles line up in favour of the conclusion that the ethical refuses blood in the presence of family members or an elder of solution to the dilemma is to honour the Jehovah’s Witness’s the church may not be expressing an autonomous wish. In refusal of blood transfusions. adhering to the respect for persons principle, physicians have an While I find this solution compelling, based on the obligation to seek to determine whether their patients’ refusals underlying moral presuppositions and empirical assumptions, of recommended treatments are truly autonomous. If there is we can imagine an alternative analysis—also using the four reason to suspect that a Jehovah’s Witness patient’s refusal of principles—that could arrive at a different conclusion. At least a blood transfusion is unduly influenced or lacking adequate implicitly, Gillon’s analysis gives great weight to the patient’s understanding of the consequences, the physician should not stated wishes and, as a result, the respect for persons principle. accede immediately and unquestioningly to the patient’s wish. Physicians who believe that their primary obligation is to save The foregoing considerations serve as a reminder that an lives, when possible, will, however, almost always subordinate ethical analysis using the four principles is complex. It respect for persons to beneficence. More importantly, if the empiri- requires an interpretation of the principles themselves in the cal facts are considerably different from what Gillon has context in which they are applied, as well as an accurate hypothesised, it is at least plausible to think that accepting a assessment of the factual circumstances of the situation. patient’s refusal of blood could cause more harm than good. While I agree with Gillon’s analysis of the “standard” Consider the following scenario. The Jehovah’s Witness Jehovah’s Witness case, I have tried to show that a change in patient is a married man with four children. His wife is not the background conditions could alter the conclusion that employed, as she is occupied rearing the children. The family respect for persons and beneficence always line up in favour of lives in the US, not the UK, and they would have no health accepting a competent adult patient’s refusal of blood. insurance for the family if the breadwinner dies. The wife has Nevertheless, for the moral agent who is convinced that respect no occupational skills, and could therefore obtain only a low for persons always takes precedence over beneficence, any conflict paying job if she were forced to go to work upon her husband’s between these two principles would still require the physician death. The husband has only a small life insurance policy that to adhere to the patient’s refusal of blood. Moreover, because could support his family for a year or two after he dies. In physicians owe stronger obligations to their patients than to addition, the closely knit Jehovah’s Witness community other parties who may be affected (the patient’s family or the becomes incensed when physicians override patients’ refusal community), it is ethically preferable to give priority to the of blood. Elders of the church have urged Witnesses not to patient’s own assessment of the good and bad consequences of seek medical attention for conditions that might result in a refusing of blood. recommendation of a blood transfusion. If that were to become a reality, there would be a likely increase in morbidity and mortality among Jehovah’s Witnesses even in situations THE “STANDARD” CHILD OF A JEHOVAH’S where they do not need blood transfusions. The net result would be a significant balance of harms over benefits, thereby WITNESS CASE contravening the principle of beneficence. On this scenario, I am entirely in agreement with Gillon’s conclusion that phy- the principles of respect for persons and beneficence are not sicians are morally right to override the parents’ refusal of a blood transfusion for their two year old child.
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]