Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Patient as Victim and VectorEthics and Infectious Disease$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Margaret P. Battin, Leslie P. Francis, Jay A. Jacobson, and Charles B. Smith

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780195335842

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2009

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335842.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 25 February 2020

The Ethics of Research in Infectious Disease:

The Ethics of Research in Infectious Disease:

EXPERIMENTING ON THIS PATIENT, RISKING HARM TO THAT ONE

Chapter:
(p.164) 10 THE ETHICS OF RESEARCH IN INFECTIOUS DISEASE:
Source:
The Patient as Victim and Vector
Author(s):

Margaret P. Battin (Contributor Webpage)

Leslie P. Francis (Contributor Webpage)

Jay A. Jacobson (Contributor Webpage)

Charles B. Smith (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335842.003.0010

Research ethics has focused on protecting the autonomy of the individual research subject, insisting on informed consent and a reasonable risk/benefit ratio for a study to be ethical. At the same time, it has largely ignored the situation of the “indirect participant” in research: someone who might be adversely affected by another's participation in a research study. There are many historical examples of this failure: self-experimentation with infectious disease, the Tuskegee syphilis study, and the Willowbrook study of infectious hepatitis, among others. And there are many more contemporary examples, too, such as tests of the oral polio vaccine or of short-course anti-retroviral therapy for HIV+ pregnant women. This chapter argues that risks to indirect participants must be considered in assessing the risk/benefit ratio of study designs. Where there are identifiable indirect participants and risks to them are significant, their informed consent should also be required for participation of the direct subject in research. Where indirect participants cannot easily be identified, but risks may be substantial, the chapter suggest employing models drawn from community consent to conduct of research.

Keywords:   bioethics, indirect participant, self-experimentation, anti-retroviral therapy, research ethics, Tuskegee syphilis study, Willowbrook hepatitis study, informed consent, polio vaccine

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .