Rao Emily, Taylor Jeff, Kaytes Andy, Concha-Garcia Susanna, Riggs Patricia K, Smith Davey M, Dubé Karine, Gianella Sara
School of Medicine, University of California San Diego (UCSD), San Diego, California, USA.
AntiViral Research Center (AVRC) Community Advisory Board (CAB), UCSD, San Diego, California, USA.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2024 Jan;40(1):22-27. doi: 10.1089/AID.2022.0136. Epub 2023 Jun 21.
The concept of vulnerability in bioethics was first referenced in 1979, when the Belmont Report highlighted the need for special consideration of certain populations in the application of its general principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice in research with human participants. Since then, a body of literature has emerged regarding the content, status, and scope, as well as ethical and practical implications of vulnerability in biomedical research. The social history of HIV treatment development has at various points reflected and actively influenced bioethics' debate on vulnerability. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, people with AIDS activist groups drafted landmark patient empowerment manifestos like The Denver Principles, fighting to have greater involvement in the design and oversight of clinical trials related to HIV treatment, and in doing so, pushed against research ethics protocols created with the intention of protecting vulnerable populations. The determination of appropriate benefit/risk profiles in clinical trials was no longer limited to the purview of clinicians and scientists, but began to include the perspectives of people with HIV (PWH) and affected communities. In contemporary HIV cure-related research, where participants often risk health for no personal clinical benefit, the community's voiced motivations and objectives for participation continue to challenge population-based accounts of vulnerability. While the development of a framework for discussion and the establishment of clear regulatory requirements are necessary to support the practical and ethical conduct of research, they risk distraction from the fundamental value of voluntary participation and potentially overlook the unique history and perspectives of PWH in their participation in the quest toward an HIV cure.
生物伦理学中的脆弱性概念最早于1979年被提及,当时《贝尔蒙报告》强调,在将其关于尊重人、行善和公正的一般原则应用于涉及人类受试者的研究时,需要对某些人群给予特殊考虑。从那时起,出现了一批关于生物医学研究中脆弱性的内容、地位和范围,以及伦理和实际影响的文献。艾滋病毒治疗发展的社会历史在不同阶段反映并积极影响了生物伦理学关于脆弱性的辩论。在20世纪80年代末和90年代初,艾滋病患者维权组织起草了具有里程碑意义的患者赋权宣言,如《丹佛原则》,争取在与艾滋病毒治疗相关的临床试验设计和监督中拥有更大参与度,在此过程中,他们对旨在保护脆弱人群而制定的研究伦理规范提出了挑战。临床试验中适当的效益/风险评估的确定不再局限于临床医生和科学家的范围,而是开始纳入艾滋病毒感染者(PWH)和受影响社区的观点。在当代与艾滋病毒治愈相关的研究中,参与者往往在没有个人临床益处的情况下冒着健康风险,社区表达的参与动机和目标继续对基于人群的脆弱性描述构成挑战。虽然制定一个讨论框架和明确的监管要求对于支持研究的实际和伦理开展是必要的,但它们有可能分散对自愿参与这一基本价值的关注,并可能忽视艾滋病毒感染者在参与寻求治愈艾滋病毒过程中的独特历史和观点。