Perna M A
Public Health Policy Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London, Research & Development Directorate - NHS Foundation Trust UCLH, 17 Westall Close, West Street, Herts, Hertford SG13 8EY, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2006 Aug;32(8):478-82. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.013763.
This article sets out to counteract HM Evans's "fair's fair argument" in support of abolishing veto to research participation. Evans's argument attempts to assimilate ordinary clinical practice to clinical research. I shall refer to this attempt as "assimilation claim". I shall attempt to show that this assimilation, as it is carried out in Evans's argument, is misleading and, ultimately, logically undermines the conclusion. I shall then proceed to show that when the fair's fair argument is proposed independently of the assimilation claim, Evans's conclusion is not unavoidable and possible alternatives are equally open within the terms of the argument itself.
本文旨在反驳H.M. 埃文斯支持取消研究参与否决权的“公平就是公平”论点。埃文斯的论点试图将普通临床实践等同于临床研究。我将把这一尝试称为“等同主张”。我将试图表明,在埃文斯的论点中进行的这种等同具有误导性,并且最终在逻辑上破坏了其结论。然后我将继续表明,当“公平就是公平”论点独立于等同主张提出时,埃文斯的结论并非不可避免,并且在该论点本身的框架内同样存在其他可能的选择。