Abstract
One of the arguments against conducting human subject trials inthe Third World adopts a distributive justice principle found ina commentary of the CIOM'S Eighth Guideline for internationalresearch on human subjects. Critics argue that non-participantmembers of the community in which the trials are conducted areexploited because sponsoring agencies do not ensure that theproducts developed have been made reasonably available to theseindividuals.I argue that the distributive principle's wording is too vagueand ambiguous to be used to criticize any trial. Furthermore,the mere fact that an experiment does not fulfill this particulardistributive justice principle does not entail that it isunethical.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Annas GJ, Grodin MA. Human rights and maternal-fetal HIV transmission prevention trials in Africa. American Journal of Public Health 1998; 88(4): 560–563.
Crouch RA, Arras, JD. AZT trials and tribulations. Hastings Center Report 1998; 28(6): 26–34.
Glantz LH, Annas GJ, Grodin MA, Mariner WK. Research in developing countries: Taking ‘benefit’ seriously. Hastings Center Report 1998; 28(6): 38–42.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS, 1993.
Bankowski Z, Levine RJ, eds. Ethics and Research on Human Subjects: International Guidelines. Geneva: CIOMS, 1993, p. 26.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Administration of Zidovudine during late pregnancy and delivery to prevent perinatal HIV transmission – Thailand, 1996–1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1998; 47(8): 151–154.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), National Institutes of Health, Agence Nationale de Recherche Sur Le Sida, “Joint Statement,” PRNewswire, Atlanta, GA, 18 February 1998.
Judge Spotswood W. Robinson,III, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 19 May 1972. 464 Federal Reporter, 2nd series, pp. 772–796.
Marx K. Capital, volume one and Capital, volume three. The Marx-Engels Reader. W. W. Norton & Company, 1978.
American Hospital Association. A patient's bill of rights. Saturday Review of the Sciences 24 February 1973; 1: 22.
American Medical Association. Principles of medical ethics. American Medical News 1/8 August 1980: 9.
The Nuremberg Code from “Permissible Medical Experiments.” Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10: Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, n.d., vol. 2, pp. 181–182.
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Journal of the American Medical Association 1997; 277: 925–926.
Kant I. The Metaphysics of Morals (Mary Gregor, trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 174.
Gorovitz S. Informed consent and patient autonomy. In: Callahan JC, ed. Ethical Issues in Professional Life, Vol. 184. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 182–188.
Hill TE Jr. Servility and self-respect. Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life (Harcourt Brace College Publishers) 1997: 543–545.
French HW. AIDS research in Africa: Juggling risks and hopes. New York Times, October 9, 1997, http://nytimes.qpass.com/qpass-archives?Q..oc!+10=wAAA+AIDS%20research%20in%20Africa: 1–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cooley, D. Distributive Justice and Clinical Trials in the Third World. Theor Med Bioeth 22, 151–167 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011452716028
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011452716028