Sankar Pamela
Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
Med Anthropol Q. 2004 Dec;18(4):429-46. doi: 10.1525/maq.2004.18.4.429.
Biomedical ethics require that research subjects be aware that the drugs they take or procedures they undergo are designed to fulfill the conditions of the experiment and not to benefit a subject's health. This apparently straightforward distinction between research and treatment is a source of much controversy and misunderstanding. Ethicists have labeled this problem the "therapeutic misconception." This misconception and, more broadly, informed consent have been studied extensively. Nonetheless, the therapeutic misconception persists among research subjects. This paper argues that one factor overlooked in the persistence of the therapeutic misconception is the effect of the theoretical paradigm that guides the practice and analysis of informed consent. The paradigm poses an idealized model of communication that ignores social context. This paper examines informed consent practices associated with a cancer research trial to demonstrate an alternative approach to studying informed consent to research. Through analysis of informed consent session transcripts, it demonstrates the importance of taking account of not only what is said, but how and by whom it is said.
生物医学伦理要求研究对象意识到他们所服用的药物或所接受的程序是为了满足实验条件,而不是为了有益于研究对象的健康。这种在研究与治疗之间看似直接明了的区分,是诸多争议和误解的根源。伦理学家将这个问题称为“治疗性误解”。人们对这种误解以及更广泛意义上的知情同意进行了广泛研究。尽管如此,治疗性误解在研究对象中依然存在。本文认为,治疗性误解持续存在的一个被忽视的因素是指导知情同意实践和分析的理论范式的影响。该范式提出了一个理想化的沟通模式,而忽略了社会背景。本文考察了与一项癌症研究试验相关的知情同意实践,以展示一种研究研究知情同意的替代方法。通过对知情同意会议记录的分析,它表明不仅要考虑说了什么,还要考虑说话的方式和说话的人,这一点很重要。