• 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

研究中的伦理问题。

Ethical issues in research.

作者信息

Artal Raul, Rubenfeld Sheldon

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, USA.

Baylor College of Medicine, Center for Medicine After the Holocaust, Houston, USA.

出版信息

Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Aug;43:107-114. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.12.006. Epub 2017 Jan 23.

DOI:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.12.006
PMID:28190696
Abstract

Biomedical research is currently guided by ethical standards that have evolved over many centuries. Historical and political events, social and legal considerations, and continuous medical and technological advances have led to the prevailing research ethics and practice. Currently, patients and research subjects have complete autonomy while under medical care or when volunteering as research subjects. Enrolling volunteers in human subjects research includes a detailed and meaningful informed consent process that follows the cardinal principles of ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. These principles were gradually adopted after World War II, primarily in response to the unethical behavior of German physicians and scientists during the Third Reich. This review emphasizes the importance of historical milestones and the essential role that ethics has in contemporary medical research. Research protocols should achieve maximum benefits for the society, have clinical and scientific value, be subject to independent review, respect human dignity, and follow the principles of informed consent, and most importantly, subjects should have complete autonomy. However, current principles and regulations cannot cover every conceivable situation, particularly in view of the new advances in science and technology. New and evolving medical technology, genetic research, therapeutic interventions, and innovations challenge society to maintain the highest moral and ethical principles.

摘要

生物医学研究目前受历经多个世纪演变而来的伦理标准指导。历史和政治事件、社会及法律考量,以及医学和技术的不断进步,造就了当前盛行的研究伦理与实践。当前,患者及研究对象在接受医疗护理或作为研究对象自愿参与时拥有完全自主权。将志愿者纳入人体研究对象范畴包括一个详细且有意义的知情同意过程,该过程遵循伦理的基本原则:自主、有益、无害和公正。这些原则在第二次世界大战后逐渐被采用,主要是为了回应纳粹德国时期德国医生和科学家的不道德行为。本综述强调了历史里程碑的重要性以及伦理在当代医学研究中所起的关键作用。研究方案应为社会带来最大利益,具有临床和科学价值,接受独立审查,尊重人类尊严,遵循知情同意原则,并且最重要的是,研究对象应拥有完全自主权。然而,当前的原则和规定无法涵盖每一种可想象到的情况,尤其是鉴于科学技术的新进展。新出现且不断发展的医学技术、基因研究、治疗干预措施及创新对社会提出挑战,要求其维持最高的道德和伦理原则。

相似文献

1
Ethical issues in research.研究中的伦理问题。
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Aug;43:107-114. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.12.006. Epub 2017 Jan 23.
2
[The origin of informed consent].[知情同意的起源]
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2005 Oct;25(5):312-27.
3
Ethics for Laboratory Medicine.《实验室医学伦理学》
Clin Chem. 2019 Dec;65(12):1497-1507. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2019.306670. Epub 2019 Aug 21.
4
The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.《贝尔蒙报告》。保护人类研究受试者的伦理原则与准则。
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13.
5
Research ethics.研究伦理。
West Indian Med J. 1995 Dec;44(4):115-8.
6
Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice.临床伦理学原则及其在实践中的应用。
Med Princ Pract. 2021;30(1):17-28. doi: 10.1159/000509119. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
7
Limits of autonomy in biomedical ethics?: conceptual clarifications.生物医学伦理学中的自主性限度?:概念阐释
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2011 Oct;20(4):524-32. doi: 10.1017/S0963180111000260.
8
Ethical Tensions Resulting from Interpreter Involvement in the Consent Process.口译员参与同意过程所引发的伦理困境。
Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Jul;41(4):31-35. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500025.
9
Balancing moral principles in federal regulations on human research.在联邦人类研究法规中平衡道德原则。
IRB. 1992 Jan-Feb;14(1):1-6.
10
Informed Consent in the Changing Landscape of Research.研究格局变化中的知情同意
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2016 Sep 1;43(5):558-60. doi: 10.1188/16.ONF.558-560.

引用本文的文献

1
Laboratory medicine between technological innovation, rights safeguarding, and patient safety: A bioethical perspective.技术创新、权利保障与患者安全之间的检验医学:生物伦理学视角
Open Med (Wars). 2025 May 29;20(1):20251153. doi: 10.1515/med-2025-1153. eCollection 2025.
2
A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review.为实现更好的社会责任与正义的全球科学研究伦理之旅:文献计量分析与综述
Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 Feb 11;10:1504937. doi: 10.3389/frma.2025.1504937. eCollection 2025.
3
A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.
埃及临床研究法的比较伦理分析。
BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Apr 30;25(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01040-0.
4
Understanding identity construction among deaf adolescents and young adults: implications for the delivery of person and family-centered care in audiological rehabilitation.理解聋青少年和青年的身份建构:对听力学康复中以个人和家庭为中心的护理提供的启示。
Front Rehabil Sci. 2023 Nov 1;4:1228116. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2023.1228116. eCollection 2023.
5
Pacemaker Reuse in Portuguese Speaking Countries: A Clinical Reflection.葡萄牙语国家的起搏器再利用:临床思考
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2023 Feb;120(2):e20210941. doi: 10.36660/abc.20210941.
6
An e-consent framework for tiered informed consent for human genomic research in the global south, implemented as a REDCap template.一个用于全球南方人类基因组研究分层知情同意的电子知情同意框架,作为 REDCap 模板实施。
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Nov 24;23(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00860-2.
7
The development and evaluation of a nurse anaesthesia model for practice in South Africa.南非护士麻醉实践模式的开发与评估。
Int J Nurs Sci. 2022 Jun 22;9(3):334-342. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnss.2022.06.009. eCollection 2022 Jul.
8
Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials.临床均衡性评价:肿瘤学试验实例。
Curr Rev Clin Exp Pharmacol. 2023;18(1):22-30. doi: 10.2174/2772432817666211221164101.
9
Mesenchymal stem cells in neurodegenerative diseases: Opinion review on ethical dilemmas.神经退行性疾病中的间充质干细胞:关于伦理困境的观点综述
World J Stem Cells. 2020 Mar 26;12(3):168-177. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.v12.i3.168.