Article Text
PDFResponse
What can the lived experience of participating in risky HIV cure-related studies establish?
Abstract
This response to Gail Henderson et al argues that they were right that interviewees’ appraisals of cure study participation should inform (future) protocol review decisions, but wrong to take these appraisals at face value.
- Autonomy
- Clinical Trials
- Decision-making
- Ethics
- Research Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors NE is the sole author.
Funding Writing this response was enabled by NIAID grant 1 R01 AI114617-01A1 (HIV cure studies: risk, risk perception, and ethics).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research: addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment
- Why high-risk, non-expected-utility-maximising gambles can be rational and beneficial: the case of HIV cure studies
- Phase I oncology trials: why the therapeutic misconception will not go away
- Newborn health benefits or financial risk protection? An ethical analysis of a real-life dilemma in a setting without universal health coverage
- How to keep high-risk studies ethical: classifying candidate solutions
- An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research
- Vaccine testing for emerging infections: the case for individual randomisation
- A rational cure for prereproductive stress syndrome
- Reconceptualising risk–benefit analyses: the case of HIV cure research
- For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies