• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale
    • Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale
    • Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Experimentation with Human Beings: Light or Only Shadows?

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    15_6YaleJHealthPolyL_Ethics431 ...
    Size:
    1.918Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Capron, Alexander
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/6077
    Abstract
    We have failed Jay Katz. Like the man looking under the lamp-post for his keys-not because that was where he was standing when he dropped them but because the light is better there-we have labored too long in the light and poked too infrequently into the shadows where the often painful truth is to be found. We have treated as exact the imprecise process of balancing research risks and benefits. We have exalted autonomy and made a sacrament of consent forms, even those that run to hellish lengths, littered with jargon - and forgotten the myriad constraints on subjects' choices. We have realized that, however well-intentioned researchers may be, their individual judgment of when and how to conduct research is usually very partial, in both senses of that word. Yet, from that realization we have moved to the contradictory conclusion that by instituting prior review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), we have solved the ethical problems involved in deciding when and how to conduct research. Above all, we have developed elaborate rules and processes to normalize human experimentation, to treat it as an ordinary activity. We have thus avoided looking clearly at the moral dilemma that lies at the heart of every research encounter: "We are asking you to do this not for yourself but for others, even though we know that the role of human subject entails real and sometimes unforeseen risks including death." Such a statement is significant not becauseor not solely because-it clearly describes the potential harm. I agree with Jay that this is not the critical issue, though it is hardly one that we can ignore, in light both of the historical abuses of research subjects and also of what has occurred much more recently at such renowned medical institutions as the University of Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins. Rather, its central significance lies in its frank description of the aims of research and, hence, of the potential divergence of interest between the prospective subject and the person offering to enroll him or her in the research project.
    Collections
    Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.