Ethically Pondered Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.v33n3a15Keywords:
research, ethics research, social justice, bioethicsAbstract
Today, the practice of research ethics is grounded on the four principles theory of Beauchamp & Childress. They proposed that ethical research be conducted on the basis of four prima facie principles: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice The instrumentalization of this theory has made ethics discussion and argumentation easier for the biomedical sciences and health research. However, the ethical assessment and monitoring of research has been bureaucratized. For both researchers and ethical review boards, this is a process in which compliance with a requirements checklist is verified. This checklist is what is left of the codes of ethics research provided by the four principles approach after being synthesized in practice. Moreover, this checklist generally disregards the discussion of social justice as a priority for health research. For this reason, the authors consider it necessary to propose other frameworks for addressing the ethics of research that are not limited to applying regulations but rather invite ethical reflection in the processes of health research. Likewise, the authors believe that conceiving ethics as a reflection on justice creates a broader framework for understanding the ethics of research. This makes it possible to avoid assuming a position that is limited to external rules and regulations and instead recognizes it as a vital issue that involves the researcher as a moral subject.
Downloads
References
(1). Potter VR. Bioethics: bridge to the future. Prentice-Hall; 1971. 230 p.
(2). Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press; 2001. 470 p.
(3). Luna F, Salles A. La teoría de los Principios. Bioética : nuevas reflexiones sobre debates clásicos. 1st. ed. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 2008. p. 49–74.
(4). Garrafa V, de Azambuja LEO. Epistemología de la Bioética, enfoque latinoamericano. Revista colombiana de Bioética. 2009;4(1):2009.
(5). Tribunal Internacional de Núremberg. Código de Nuremberg [Internet]. Bioéticas. Guía internacional de la Bioética. 1947 [Acceso 2010 Nov 25]. Disponible en: http://www.bioeticas.org/bio.php?articulo265
(6). Asamblea Médica Mundial. Declaración de Helsinki. Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos [Internet]. Fortaleza, Brasil; 2013. Disponible en: http://www.wma.net/es/30publications/10policies/b3/
(7). Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. New England journal of medicine. 1966;274(24):1354–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196606162742405
(8). University of Virginia Health Sciences Library. Final Report of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Legacy Committee [Internet]. www.hsl.virginia.edu. 1996 [Acceso 2012 Oct 3]. Disponible en: http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/medical_history/bad_blood/report.cfm
(9). Reverby SM. “ Normal exposure” and inoculation syphilis: A PHS“ Tuskegee” doctor in Guatemala, 1946-1948. Journal of Policy History. 2011;23(1):6–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030610000291
(10). Comisión nacional para la protección de los sujetos humanos de investigación biomédica y del comportamiento. USA I. Informe Belmont. Principios y guías éticos para la protección de los sujetos humanos de investigación. Washington D.C.; 1976.
(11). U.S. Department of Health and Human Service - The Office of Research Integrity. Chapter 2 - Common Rule [Internet]. http://ori.hhs.gov/. 2006 [Acceso 2012 Oct 3]. Disponible en: http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ucla/chapter2/page04b.htm
(12). Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas (CIOMS)/Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigación biomédica en seres humanos [Internet]. Ginebra: Organización Mundial de la Salud; 2002 [Acceso 2011 Apr 15]. Disponible en: http://www.paho.org/Spanish/BIO/CIOMS.pdf
(13). Organizacion Mundial de la Salud. Guías Operacionales Para Comités de Ética que Evalúan Investigación Biomédica [Internet]. Ginebra: TDR/PRD/ETHICS/2000.1; 2000 [Acceso 2011 Apr 1]. Disponible en: http://apps.who.int/tdr/svc/publications/training-guideline-publications/operational-guidelines-ethics-biomedical-research
(14). Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Buenas prácticas clínicas: documento de las Américas. IV Conferencia Panamericana para la Armonización de la Reglamentación Farmaceútica, República Dominicana: OPS; 2005.
(15). Shah S. Cazadores de cuerpos: La experimentación farmacéutica con los pobres del mundo. 451 Editores; 2009. 342 p.
(16). Macklin R. Ética de la investigación internacional: el problema de la justicia hacia los países menos desarrollados. Acta bioethica. 2004;10(1):27–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2004000100004
(17). Global Forum for Health Research. Global Forum for Health Research » Achievements and History [Internet]. http://www.globalforumhealth.org/. 2011 [Acceso 2012 Oct 3]. Disponible en: http://www.globalforumhealth.org/acchievements-and-history/
(18). Achío-Tacsan M. Ética de la investigación en ciencias sociales: Repensando temas viejos. Cuadernos de Sociología. 2006;(6):25–38.
(19). Donders Y. The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress: in search of state obligations in relation to health. Med Health Care Philos. 2011 Nov;14(4):371–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-011-9327-y
(20). London AJ. Justice in the Application of Science: Beyond Fair Benefits. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2010;10(6):54–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2010.483184
(21). Pratt B, Loff B. Linking international research to global health equity: the limited contribution of bioethics. Bioethics. 2013 May;27(4):208–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01932.x
(22). Sandel M. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Penguin Books Limited; 2009. 358 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e597132010-001
(23). Cortina A, Navarro EM. Ética. Ediciones AKAL; 2005.
(24). Pieper A. Etica y moral: Una introducción a la filosofía práctica. Crítica; 1991. 251 p.
(25). Tugendhat E. Lecciones de ética. Gedisa; 1997. 384 p.
(26). Berger PL, Luckmann T. La construcción social de la realidad. Amorrortu; 2006. 233 p.
(27). Bauman Z. Ética posmoderna. Siglo XXI de España Editores; 2009. 354 p.
(28). Fields AB. Human rights theory: Criteria, boudaries, and complexities. In: Denzin NK, Giardina MD, editors. Qualitative Inquiry and Human Rights. Left Coast Press; 2010.
(29). Gilligan C. La Moral y la Teoría: Psicología Del Desarrollo Femenino. Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1985. 291 p.
(30). Kohlberg L. Psicologia Del Desarrollo Moral. Desclée De Brouwer; 1992. 662 p.
(31). Hostetler K. What is “good” education research? Educational Researcher. 2005;34(6):16–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006016
(32). Hernández Álvarez M. La bioética y el pluralismo ético. Gerencia y Políticas de Salud. 2001;1(1).
(33). Rawls J. Teoría de la Justicia. Fondo de Cultura Económica; 2006. 549 p.
(34). Sahuí A. John Rawls: Del consenso entrecruzado al equilibrio reflexivo. Algunas consideraciones acerca del uso público de la razón. Signos filosóficos. 2001;(006):211–40.
(35). Lyotard J-F. La Condición Postmoderna: Informe Sobre el Saber. Cátedra; 1998. 124 p.
(36). Cheek J. Points of Hesitation. International Review of Qualitative Research. 2011;4(2):209–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2011.4.2.209
(37). Stanfield II JH. The possible restorative justice functions of qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 2006;19(6):723–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600975925
(38). Brinkmann S. Towards a theory of rights for qualitative researchers. International Review of Qualitative Research. 2011;4(2):189–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2011.4.2.189
(39). Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Giardina MD. Disciplining qualitative research 1. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educa-tion. 2006;19(6):769–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390600975990
(40). Denzin NK, Giardina MD. Introduction: Qualitative inquiry and social justice: toward a politics hope. Left Coast Press; 2009. 321 p.
(41). Habermas J. Conocimiento e interés. Taurus; 1982.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The contents of the articles are the responsibility of the authors
The editorial committee has editorial independence from the National School of Public Health "Héctor Abad Gómez" of the University of Antioquia.
The editorial committee is not responsible for aspects related to copying, plagiarism or fraud that may appear in the articles published in it.
When you are going to reproduce and disclose photographs or personal data in printed or digital format, informed consent is required. Therefore, this requirement is required of the author at the time of receipt of the manuscript.
Authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions to reproduce any material protected by reproduction rights.
The authors preserve the moral rights and assign the economic rights that will correspond to the University of Antioquia, to publish it, distribute electronic copies, include them in indexing services, directories or national and international databases in Open Access, under the Creative Commons Attribution license -Not Commercial-Share Equal 4.0 International Commercial (CC BY-NC-SA) which allows others to distribute, remix, retouch, and create from the work in a non-commercial way, as long as the respective credit and license are granted. new creations under the same conditions.
The authors will sign the declaration of transfer of economic rights to the University of Antioquia, after the acceptance of the manuscript.
The editorial committee reserves the right to reject the articles whose authors do not offer satisfactory explanations about the contribution of each author, to meet the criteria of authorship in the submission letter. All authors must meet the four criteria of authorship according to ICMJE: "a) .- That there is a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the article or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the data. b) That they have participated in the design of the research work or in the critical review of its intellectual content. c) .- That has been intervened in the approval of the final version that will be published.d). That they have the capacity to respond to all aspects of the article in order to ensure that issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are adequately investigated and resolved. "
-- 
--
