Despite a tendency to react otherwise, there is no obvious reason to believe that economically disadvantaged people ought not to be exposed to the same levels of research risk as the rest of the population.
When a child or family begins to stand out because of patterns in history or physical findings, physicians must determine whether to take a closer look at the situation.
Public and private choices about allocation of funds for research raise a social-justice question: are these funding sources making fair decisions about where to invest their resources? The NIH has the clearest obligation to do so because it is taxpayer-supported.
The question that comes to mind when one considers the risks of a clinical trial is, “Why would anyone agree to participate?” Interviews with trial volunteers and their family members make clear that often it is the appeal of discovering something new and unknown.
Consideration of what constitutes sufficient information about how donation protocols can interfere with a patient’s dying process is a key feature of consent processes.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(8):E708-716. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.708.
Clara C. Hildebrandt, MD and Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH
Gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 raises concerns about equitable access to therapies that could limit research participation by minority group members. These concerns can be addressed through public education, transparency, and stakeholder partnerships.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E826-833. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.826.
The authors address the medical ethics question of whether autopsy is necessary from Cartesian and sociocultural perspectives and how to obtain consent.
AMA J Ethics. 2016; 18(8):771-778. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.ecas2-1608.
Dr Lisa Fuller joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article: “How Should Organizations and Clinicians Help Marginalized Patients Manage Loneliness as a Harm of Climate Change?”