Perspect Biol Med. 2020;63(2):313-326. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2020.0021.
One of the Belmont Report's most important contributions was the clear and serviceable distinction it drew between standard medical practice and biomedical research. A less well-known achievement of the Report was its conceptualization of innovative practice, a type of medical practice that is often mistaken for research because it is new, untested, or experimental. Although the discussion of innovative practice in Belmont is brief and somewhat cryptic, this does not reflect the significant progress its authors made in understanding innovative practice and the distinctive ethical issues it raises. This article explores the history and broader context of Belmont's conception of innovative practice, its strengths and weaknesses, and its contemporary relevance for scholars working in bioethics and health policy. While this conception of innovative practice deserves our attention, it is inherently limited in some important ways.
《贝尔蒙报告》的最重要贡献之一是清晰而实用地区分了标准的医疗实践和生物医学研究。报告鲜为人知的另一个成就是它对创新实践的概念化，这是一种经常被误认为是研究的医疗实践，因为它是新的、未经检验的或实验性的。尽管《贝尔蒙报告》中对创新实践的讨论简短而有些隐晦，但这并没有反映出其作者在理解创新实践及其所引发的独特伦理问题方面取得的重大进展。本文探讨了《贝尔蒙报告》中对创新实践的概念的历史和更广泛的背景、其优缺点，以及其对从事生物伦理学和卫生政策研究的学者的当代相关性。虽然这种创新实践的概念值得我们关注，但它在某些重要方面存在固有局限性。
