Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Medical Foundation Building, Parramatta Road, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.
J Med Ethics. 2013 Apr;39(4):231-5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100936. Epub 2012 Nov 22.
In clinical research there is a tension between the role of a doctor, who must serve the best interests of the patient, and the role of the researcher, who must produce knowledge that may not have any immediate benefits for the research participant. This tension is exacerbated in HIV research in low and middle income countries, which frequently uncovers comorbidities other than the condition under study. Some bioethicists argue that as the goals of medicine and those of research are distinct, it is a mistake for researchers to assume therapeutic responsibilities while engaging in research. Others propose that there is a duty of care, but disagree as to how this is limited and specified. In this qualitative study, principal investigators from HIV prevention trials discuss their experience of providing medical benefits to participants within the context of conducting research into HIV biomedical prevention technologies. They describe the limitations imposed at times by funders and at times by infrastructure constraints, and canvass the importance of ancillary care provision and capacity building in trial communities. The views of the principal investigators are compatible with the perspective that there is a duty of care, limited by the nature of the research, the depth of the relationship between research and participant, and the capacity of the research site. The therapeutic orientation in HIV prevention trial appears to be indivisible from competent research practise by making concrete and appropriate benefits available to trial participants and their communities that support rather than compete with local infrastructure.
在临床研究中,医生的角色和研究人员的角色之间存在紧张关系,医生必须为患者的最佳利益服务,而研究人员则必须产生可能对研究参与者没有任何直接益处的知识。在中低收入国家的 HIV 研究中,这种紧张关系更加加剧,因为它经常发现除了研究疾病以外的合并症。一些生物伦理学家认为,由于医学和研究的目标不同,研究人员在从事研究的同时承担治疗责任是错误的。另一些人则认为存在护理责任,但对于如何限制和具体说明这一点存在分歧。在这项定性研究中,HIV 预防试验的主要研究者讨论了他们在进行 HIV 生物医学预防技术研究的背景下为参与者提供医疗福利的经验。他们描述了资助者和基础设施限制有时施加的限制,并探讨了辅助护理提供和试验社区能力建设的重要性。主要研究者的观点与这样一种观点是一致的,即存在护理责任,但受到研究的性质、研究与参与者之间关系的深度以及研究地点的能力的限制。通过为试验参与者及其社区提供具体和适当的利益,HIV 预防试验中的治疗方向似乎与有能力的研究实践不可分割,这些利益支持而不是与当地基础设施竞争。