London A J
Department of Philosophy & Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics, Carnegie Mellon University, 135 Baker Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Bioethics. 2001 Aug;15(4):312-32. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00241.
This paper examines the role of equipoise in evaluating international research. It distinguishes two possible formulations of the equipoise requirement that license very different evaluations of international research proposals. The interpretation that adopts a narrow criterion of similarity between clinical contexts has played an important role in one recent controversy, but it suffers from a number of problems. An alternative interpretation that adopts a broader criterion of similarity does a better job of avoiding both exploitation of the brute fact of social deprivation and the exploitation of needy populations for the benefit of more well-off populations. It also holds out the promise of reconciling the need to find interventions that can be employed in developing world contexts with the cluster of moral values that must constrain the way such research is carried out.
本文探讨了 equipoise 在评估国际研究中的作用。它区分了 equipoise 要求的两种可能表述，这两种表述对国际研究提案的评估截然不同。采用临床背景之间狭义相似性标准的解释在最近的一场争议中发挥了重要作用，但它存在一些问题。采用更宽泛相似性标准的另一种解释在避免利用社会剥夺的残酷事实以及为富裕人群利益而剥削贫困人群方面做得更好。它还有望调和在发展中世界背景下寻找可用干预措施的需求与必须约束此类研究开展方式的一系列道德价值观之间的矛盾。
