MacKay Douglas
Bioethics. 2015 May;29(4):262-73. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12060. Epub 2013 Sep 30.
The problem of standard of care in clinical research concerns the level of treatment that investigators must provide to subjects in clinical trials. Commentators often formulate answers to this problem by appealing to two distinct types of obligations: professional obligations and natural duties. In this article, I investigate whether investigators also possess institutional obligations that are directly relevant to the problem of standard of care, that is, those obligations a person has because she occupies a particular institutional role. I examine two types of institutional contexts: (1) public research agencies - agencies or departments of states that fund or conduct clinical research in the public interest; and (2) private-for-profit corporations. I argue that investigators who are employed or have their research sponsored by the former have a distinctive institutional obligation to conduct their research in a way that is consistent with the state's duty of distributive justice to provide its citizens with access to basic health care, and its duty to aid citizens of lower income countries. By contrast, I argue that investigators who are employed or have their research sponsored by private-for-profit corporations do not possess this obligation nor any other institutional obligation that is directly relevant to the ethics of RCTs. My account of the institutional obligations of investigators aims to contribute to the development of a reasonable, distributive justice-based account of standard of care.
临床研究中的医疗护理标准问题涉及研究者在临床试验中必须为受试者提供的治疗水平。评论者们常常通过诉诸两种不同类型的义务来阐述对这一问题的答案:职业义务和自然义务。在本文中,我探究研究者是否还拥有与医疗护理标准问题直接相关的机构义务,即一个人因其占据特定的机构角色而具有的那些义务。我考察两种类型的机构背景:(1)公共研究机构——以公共利益为目的资助或开展临床研究的国家机构或部门;以及(2)营利性私人公司。我认为,受雇于前者或其研究由前者赞助的研究者负有一项独特的机构义务,即要以一种与国家的分配正义义务相一致的方式开展研究,该义务包括为其公民提供基本医疗保健的途径,以及援助低收入国家公民的义务。相比之下,我认为受雇于营利性私人公司或其研究由该类公司赞助的研究者并不负有这项义务,也不具有任何其他与随机对照试验伦理直接相关的机构义务。我对研究者机构义务的阐述旨在推动基于合理的分配正义的医疗护理标准解释的发展。