The University of Manchester, The School of Law, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2010 Oct;36(10):598-603. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.034132. Epub 2010 Sep 1.
This paper reflects on some amendments to the Declaration of Helsinki in 2008. It focuses on former paragraphs 5 (now 6) and 19 (now 17). Paragraph 5 suggested that the wellbeing of research participants should take precedence over the interests of science and society. Paragraph 6 now proposes that it should take precedence over all other interests. Paragraph 19, and the new paragraph 17, suggest that research involving the members of a disadvantaged population is only justified if the clinical trial is likely to benefit them. In both cases, the recommendation is that the interests of the research subjects should prevail over the interests of third parties. This paper assesses the plausibility of these statements, and in order to do so, considers debates on the moral duty to participate in biomedical research. It is argued that, even if seen in the context of the Declaration as a whole, the statements contained in these paragraphs risk offering a misleading portrait of science and risk eroding some of the ethical principles that should form the basis of a satisfactory shared life, such as altruism and responsibility for our fellows.
本文反思了 2008 年《赫尔辛基宣言》的一些修订。重点关注前第 5 段(现为第 6 段)和第 19 段(现为第 17 段)。第 5 段建议研究参与者的福祉应优先于科学和社会利益。第 6 段现在提议,它应优先于所有其他利益。第 19 段和新的第 17 段建议,只有当临床试验有可能使弱势人群受益时,涉及该人群成员的研究才是合理的。在这两种情况下,建议研究对象的利益应优先于第三方的利益。本文评估了这些陈述的合理性,并为此考虑了关于参与生物医学研究的道德义务的辩论。有人认为,即使从宣言的整体来看,这些段落中的陈述也有可能对科学做出误导性的描述,并有可能侵蚀一些应该成为令人满意的共同生活基础的伦理原则,例如利他主义和对我们同胞的责任。