Show simple item record

dc.creatorMacklin, Ruthen
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-08T23:05:11Zen
dc.date.available2016-01-08T23:05:11Zen
dc.date.created2001-11en
dc.date.issued2001-11en
dc.identifierdoi:10.1111/dewb.2001.1.issue-2en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationDeveloping World Bioethics 2001 November; 1(2): 121-134en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Four+forward-looking+guidance+points&title=Developing+World+Bioethics+&volume=1&issue=2&spage=121-134&date=2001-11&au=Macklin,+Ruthen
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dewb.2001.1.issue-2en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/950171en
dc.description.abstractFour key guidance points in the UNAIDS guidance document, Ethical Considerations in HIV Preventive Vaccine Research, are compared with analogous statements in three other recently issued documents dealing with international research. Those documents are: the Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2000; the report of the U.S. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, issued in 2001; and a current (2001) draft revision of the 1993 CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. The four guidance points compared with statements on similar issues in the other three documents are Guidance Point 2, which deals with making available a safe and effective vaccine after trials are completed; the second half of Guidance Point 4, which requires that the desired outcome should potentially benefit the population from which research participants are drawn; Guidance Point 11, which discusses what should be provided to a control group in a vaccine trial; and Guidance Point 16, which addresses the care and treatment to be provided for trial participants who become infected with HIV during the trial. The analysis and comparison concludes that the UNAIDS guidance points are at least as ethically sound as analogous points in these other documents, and for the most part are ethically superior in providing greater benefits to research participants and to others. Nevertheless, they are subject to the criticism that they are too `aspirational' and not sufficiently `pragmatic'.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceeweb:237528en
dc.subjectBioethicsen
dc.subjectBiomedical Researchen
dc.subjectGuidelinesen
dc.subjectResearchen
dc.subject.classificationHuman Experimentation Policy Guidelines / Institutional Review Boardsen
dc.subject.classificationAcquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or HIV Infectionen
dc.titleFour Forward-Looking Guidance Pointsen
dc.provenanceCitation prepared by the Library and Information Services group of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University for the ETHXWeb database.en
dc.provenanceCitation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named EWEB hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection EthxWeb hosted by DigitalGeorgetown.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2022 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885