Buchanan David R, Miller Franklin G
Community Health Education, 306 Arnold House, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.
Am J Public Health. 2006 May;96(5):781-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.063719. Epub 2006 Mar 29.
The Kennedy Krieger lead paint study stirred controversial questions about whether research designed to develop less expensive interventions that are not as effective as existing treatments can be ethically warranted. Critics questioned the social value of such research and alleged that it sanctions a double standard, exploits participants, and is complicit in perpetuating the social injustice. In response, we demonstrate the propriety of conducting research on interventions that can be extended to the population in need by stipulating the limited conditions in which it is ethically warranted and providing fair terms of participation. We contend that the failure to conduct such research causes greater harm, because it deprives disadvantaged populations of the benefits of imminent incremental improvements in their health conditions.
肯尼迪·克里格含铅油漆研究引发了关于以下问题的争议:旨在开发成本较低但效果不如现有治疗方法的干预措施的研究在伦理上是否合理。批评者质疑此类研究的社会价值,并声称它认可了双重标准、剥削了参与者,并且在延续社会不公方面难辞其咎。作为回应,我们通过规定在伦理上合理的有限条件并提供公平的参与条款,证明了对可推广至有需要人群的干预措施进行研究的正当性。我们认为,不进行此类研究造成的危害更大,因为它剥夺了弱势群体从其健康状况即将实现的渐进改善中获益的机会。