rss
J Med Ethics 2007;33:205-209 doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016790
  • Global medical ethics

Benefit sharing: it’s time for a definition

  1. D Schroeder
  1. Correspondence to:
 D Schroeder
 Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire, Harrington Building, Preston PR1 2HE, UK; dschroeder{at}uclan.ac.uk
  • Received 6 April 2006
  • Accepted 15 May 2006
  • Revised 14 May 2006

Abstract

Benefit sharing has been a recurrent theme in international debates for the past two decades. However, despite its prominence in law, medical ethics and political philosophy, the concept has never been satisfactorily defined. In this conceptual paper, a definition that combines current legal guidelines with input from ethics debates is developed. Philosophers like boxes; protective casings into which they can put concisely-defined concepts. Autonomy is the human capacity for self-determination; beneficence denotes the virtue of good deeds, coercion is the intentional threat of harm and so on. What about benefit sharing? Does the concept have a box and are the contents clearly defined? The answer to this question has to be no. The concept of benefit sharing is almost unique in that various disciplines use it regularly without precise definitions. In this article, a definition for benefit sharing is provided, to eliminate unnecessary ambiguity.

Footnotes

  • i Ruth Macklin and Udo Schuklenk pointed this out to me.

  • Competing interests: None.

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.