Article Text
Abstract
The ethics of benefit sharing has been a topical issue in global health research in resource-limited countries. It pertains to the distribution of goods, benefits and advantages to the research participants, communities and countries that are involved in research. One of the nuances in benefit sharing is the ethical justification on which the concept should be based. Extensive literature outlining the different principles underlying benefit sharing is available. The purpose of this paper is to examine the proposed principles using Aristotelian principles of justice. The paper assesses the central idea of Aristotelian justice and applies and evaluates this idea to benefit sharing in research, especially when commercial research sponsors conduct research in resource-limited countries. Two categories of Aristotelian justice—universal and particular—were examined and their contribution to the benefit-sharing discourse assessed. On the one hand, benefit sharing in accordance with universal justice requires that for-profit research sponsors obey the legal regulations and international standards set for benefit sharing. On the other hand, benefit sharing in accordance with particular justice transcends obeying legal requirements and standards to a realm of acting in an ethically accepted manner. Accordingly, the paper further examines three perspectives of particular justice and develops ethical justification for benefit sharing in global health research. As Aristotelian justice is still relevant to the contemporary discourse on justice, this paper broadens the ethical justifications of benefit sharing in global health research.
- International Affairs
- Philosophical Ethics
- Research Ethics
- Public Health Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors The article was developed at various stages of the drafted manuscript. BD and KD contributed equally to the first draft. BD elaborated the various stages of the manuscript with thorough revision, editing and mentoring from KD during the pre-publication process. Both authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Benefit sharing: it ’s time for a definition
- Sharing the benefits of research fairly: two approaches
- Sharing the benefits of genetic research
- Examining the public refusal to consent to DNA biobanking: empirical data from a Swedish population - based study
- Genomic sovereignty and the African promise: mining the African genome for the benefit of Africa
- Between the needy and the greedy: the quest for a just and fair ethics of clinical research
- Collection, storage and use of blood samples for future research: views of Egyptian patients expressed in a cross-sectional survey
- Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and / or low - income and middle - income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy
- Research for Health Justice: an ethical framework linking global health research to health equity
- Second thoughts about who is first: the medical triage of violent perpetrators and their victims