• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医疗护理标准、机构义务与分配正义。

Standard of care, institutional obligations, and distributive justice.

作者信息

MacKay Douglas

出版信息

Bioethics. 2015 May;29(4):262-73. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12060. Epub 2013 Sep 30.

DOI:10.1111/bioe.12060
PMID:24117682
Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

1
Standard of care, institutional obligations, and distributive justice.医疗护理标准、机构义务与分配正义。
Bioethics. 2015 May;29(4):262-73. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12060. Epub 2013 Sep 30.
2
Standard of care, professional obligations, and distributive justice.医疗护理标准、专业职责与分配正义。
Bioethics. 2014 Sep;28(7):352-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.02003.x. Epub 2012 Sep 17.
3
International research and positive obligations: are they "transaction specific"?国际研究与积极义务:它们是“特定于交易的”吗?
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jun;10(6):49-51. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2010.482633.
4
Human rights: the normative engine of fairness and research in developing countries.人权:发展中国家公平与研究的规范性引擎。
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jun;10(6):47-9. doi: 10.1080/15265161003728811.
5
Justice in international clinical research.国际临床研究中的公正问题。
Dev World Bioeth. 2011 Aug;11(2):75-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2010.00296.x. Epub 2010 Nov 30.
6
How to do research fairly in an unjust world.如何在不公正的世界中进行公正的研究。
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jun;10(6):26-35. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2010.482629.
7
Linking international clinical research with stateless populations to justice in global health.将国际临床研究与无国籍人群联系起来,实现全球健康领域的公平正义。
BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Jun 26;15:49. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-49.
8
A framework to link international clinical research to the promotion of justice in global health.一个将国际临床研究与促进全球健康领域的公平正义相联系的框架。
Bioethics. 2014 Oct;28(8):387-96. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12009. Epub 2012 Dec 20.
9
Evaluating the capacity of theories of justice to serve as a justice framework for international clinical research.评估正义理论作为国际临床研究的正义框架的能力。
Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(11):30-41. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2012.719261.
10
Response to open peer commentaries on "How to do research fairly in an unjust world".对关于“在一个不公正的世界中如何公正地开展研究”的公开同行评论的回应
Am J Bioeth. 2010 Jun;10(6):W4-6. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2010.492747.

引用本文的文献

1
An Equity and Justice-Informed Ethical Framework to Guide Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research.一个基于公平与正义的伦理框架,用于指导脑成像研究中的偶发发现。
Clin Pract. 2023 Jan 16;13(1):116-124. doi: 10.3390/clinpract13010011.
2
A Just Standard: The Ethical Management of Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research.一个公正的标准:脑成像研究中偶然发现的伦理管理。
J Law Med Ethics. 2021;49(2):269-281. doi: 10.1017/jme.2021.38.