Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Series Preface -- Introduction: Human Research Ethics -- Part I The Historical and Philosophical Foundations -- 1 Hans Jonas (1969), 'Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects', Doedalus, 98, pp. 219-47 -- 2 Ruth Macklin and Susan Sherwin (1975), 'Experimenting on Human Subjects: Philosophical Perspectives', Case Western Reserve Law Review, 25, pp. 434-71 -- 3 Eric M. Meslin, Heather J. Sutherland, James V. Lavery and James E. Till (1995), 'Principlism and the Ethical Appraisal of Clinical Trials', Bioethics, 9, pp. 399-418 -- 4 David J. Rothman (1998), 'The Nuremberg Code in Light of Previous Principles and Practices in Human Experimentation', in Ulrich Tröhler and Stella Reiter-Theil in cooperation with Eckhard Herych (eds), Ethics Codes in Medicine: Foundations and Achievements of Codification Since 1947, Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 50-59 -- 5 James F. Childress (2000), 'Nuremberg's Legacy: Some Ethical Reflections', Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 43, pp. 347-61 -- 6 Allen Buchanan (1996), 'The Controversy over Retrospective Moral Judgment', Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 6, pp. 245-50 -- 7 Tom L. Beauchamp (1996), 'Looking Back and Judging Our Predecessors', Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 6, pp. 251-70 -- 8 Arthur L. Caplan (1992), 'When Evil Intrudes', Hastings Center Report, 22, pp. 29-32 -- 9 Sissela Bok (1995), 'Shading the Truth in Seeking Informed Consent for Research Purposes', Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5, pp. 1-17 -- 10 Nancy E. Kass, Jeremy Sugarman, Ruth Faden and Monica Schoch-Spana (1996), 'Trust: The Fragile Foundation of Contemporary Biomedical Research', Hastings Center Report, 26, pp. 25-29

International audience ; Preliminary results of an empirical study of human experimentation practices are presented and contrasted with those of a survey conducted a hundred years ago when clinical research, although tolerated, was culturally deviant. Now that biomedical research is both authorized and controlled, its actors (sponsors, committees, investigators, subjects) come out with heterogeneous rationalities, and they appear to be engaged in a transactional process of negotiating their rationales with one another. In the European context "protective" of subjects, surprisingly the subjects we interviewed (and especially patient-subjects) were creative and revealed an aptitude for integrating experimental medicine into common culture.

International audience ; Preliminary results of an empirical study of human experimentation practices are presented and contrasted with those of a survey conducted a hundred years ago when clinical research, although tolerated, was culturally deviant. Now that biomedical research is both authorized and controlled, its actors (sponsors, committees, investigators, subjects) come out with heterogeneous rationalities, and they appear to be engaged in a transactional process of negotiating their rationales with one another. In the European context "protective" of subjects, surprisingly the subjects we interviewed (and especially patient-subjects) were creative and revealed an aptitude for integrating experimental medicine into common culture.

International audience ; Preliminary results of an empirical study of human experimentation practices are presented and contrasted with those of a survey conducted a hundred years ago when clinical research, although tolerated, was culturally deviant. Now that biomedical research is both authorized and controlled, its actors (sponsors, committees, investigators, subjects) come out with heterogeneous rationalities, and they appear to be engaged in a transactional process of negotiating their rationales with one another. In the European context "protective" of subjects, surprisingly the subjects we interviewed (and especially patient-subjects) were creative and revealed an aptitude for integrating experimental medicine into common culture.

During the 1950s, inmates at what was then called Holmesburg Prison, in Philadelphia, were inoculated with condyloma acuminatum, cutaneous moniliasis, and viruses causing warts, herpes simplex, and herpes zoster. For participating in this research, and in studies exposing them to dioxin and agents of chemical warfare, they were paid up to $1,500 a month. Between 1963 and 1971, researchers in Oregon and Washington irradiated and repeatedly took biopsy specimens from the testicles of healthy prisoners; the men subsequently reported rashes, peeling, and blisters on the scrotum as well as sexual difficulties. Hundreds of such experiments induced the federal government to essentially ban research involving prisoners in 1978. The message: such research is fundamentally exploitative and thus unethical. Yet a recent report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has opened the closed door, arguing not only that such research can be performed appropriately but that prisoners deserve to be included in investigative studies — at least those who might benefit directly. Examination of the explanations behind U.S. restrictions on prison research and their current applicability can provide guidance for today's policy debates.

Unethical human experimentation has long been a murky feature of medical research, most notoriously in the death camps of Nazi Germany. Despite the subsequent creation of the Nuremberg Code principles for the protection of human subjects, harmful medical trials continue to be conducted in the name of scientific inquiry and for the advancement of public health. Most, but not all, of the victims are marginalized groups, racially, ethnically and/or socio-economically defined, those for whom justice is often little more than a utopian hope. The article examines the violence behind the beneficent arm of the state in its role as health provider, and how the collaboration with medical science and the pharmaceutical industry have resulted in laboratories of human suffering involving society's most vulnerable. By locating the abuse of human subjects of medical research within the paradigm of state crime the article highlights the growing propensity for serious harm and abuse, diluted by the more common use of the term unethical rather than "criminal", as a consequence of this state, public health and corporate triumvirate.

Human health experiments systematically expose people to conditions beyond the boundaries of medical evidence. Such experiments have included legal-medical collaboration, exemplified in the US by the PHS Syphilis Study (Tuskegee). That medical experiment was legal, conforming to segregationist protocols and specific legislative authorization which excluded a selected group of African Americans from any medical protection from syphilis. Subsequent corrective action outlawed unethical medical experiments but did not address other forms of collaboration, including PHS submission to laws which may have placed African American women at increased risk from AIDS and breast cancer. Today, anti-lobbying law makes it a felony for PHS workers to openly question legally anointed suspension of medical evidence. African Americans and other vulnerable populations may thereby face excess risks -- not only from cancer, but also from motor vehicle crashes, firearm assault, end stage renal disease and other problems -- with PHS workers as silent partners.

Cover -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Introducion -- The Experimenters -- Ambition and Rivalry -- Military Conflicts and Medicine -- The Subjects of Experiments and the Difference Between Therapeutic and Nontherapeutic Experiments -- Era 1: Pre-19th Century -- Introduction -- Timeline -- Reference Entries -- Galen of Pergamon -- Harvey, William -- Hippocrates of Cos -- Hunter, John -- Jenner, Edward -- Lind, James -- Paré, Ambroise -- Santorio Sanctorius -- Smallpox Inoculation -- Transfusion -- Documents -- Ambroise Paré and the Treatment of Gunshot Wounds (1537) -- William Harvey and the Circulation of Blood (1628) -- James Lind's Scurvy Experiment (1747) -- Edward Jenner's Inoculation Experiment (1798) -- Further Reading -- Era 2: 19th Century -- Introduction -- Timeline -- Reference Entries -- Anesthesiology -- Beaumont, William, and Alexis St. Martin -- Beriberi Experiments in Japan -- Freud, Sigmund -- Haffkine, Waldemar Mordecai Wolff -- Haldane, John Scott -- Halsted, William Stewart -- Hansen, Gerhard Armauer -- Hookworm -- Neisser, Albert -- Pasteur, Louis -- Sanarelli, Giuseppe -- Sims, J. Marion -- Venereal Disease Experiments -- Von Pettenkofer, Max -- Documents -- Inhumane Experimentation on African American Slaves (1855) -- Louis Pasteur and Rabies (1885) -- Further Reading -- Era 3: 20th Century to World War II -- Introduction -- Timeline -- Reference Entries -- Amoebic Dysentery Experiments at Bilibid Prison -- Beriberi Experiments in Malaya -- Carrel, Alexis -- Castle, William -- Elgin State Hospital Experiments -- Eugenics -- Forssmann, Werner -- German Medical Research Ethics -- Goldberger, Joseph -- Haldane, John Burdon Sanderson -- Insulin -- Insulin Coma Therapy -- Lobotomy -- Malariatherapy -- Rhoads, Cornelius -- Rockefeller, John D. -- San Quentin State Prison Experiments.