Michael Kirby Centre for Public Health and Human Rights at Monash University, Australia.
Bioethics. 2013 May;27(4):208-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01932.x. Epub 2011 Dec 13.
Health research has been identified as a vehicle for advancing global justice in health. However, in bioethics, issues of global justice are mainly discussed within an ongoing debate on the conditions under which international clinical research is permissible. As a result, current ethical guidance predominantly links one type of international research (biomedical) to advancing one aspect of health equity (access to new treatments). International guidelines largely fail to connect international research to promoting broader aspects of health equity - namely, healthier social environments and stronger health systems. Bioethical frameworks such as the human development approach do consider how international clinical research is connected to the social determinants of health but, again, do so to address the question of when international clinical research is permissible. It is suggested that the narrow focus of this debate is shaped by high-income countries' economic strategies. The article further argues that the debate's focus obscures a stronger imperative to consider how other types of international research might advance justice in global health. Bioethics should consider the need for non-clinical health research and its contribution to advancing global justice.
健康研究已被确定为推进全球卫生公正的手段。然而,在生物伦理学中,全球公正问题主要是在国际临床研究许可条件的持续辩论中讨论的。因此,目前的伦理准则主要将一种类型的国际研究(生物医学)与推进健康公平的一个方面(获得新的治疗方法)联系起来。国际准则在很大程度上未能将国际研究与促进更广泛的健康公平方面联系起来,即更健康的社会环境和更强有力的卫生系统。人类发展方法等生物伦理框架确实考虑了国际临床研究与健康的社会决定因素的联系,但同样是为了解决国际临床研究何时是允许的问题。有人认为,这种狭隘的辩论焦点是由高收入国家的经济战略塑造的。本文进一步认为,辩论的焦点掩盖了一个更强烈的必要性,即需要考虑其他类型的国际研究如何推进全球卫生公正。生物伦理学应该考虑到非临床健康研究的必要性及其对推进全球公正的贡献。