Failure of the Belmont Report

847 Words Jan 26th, 2018 3 Pages
The Belmont Report has failed to distinguish different sources including the kinds of vulnerability or to map particular protections to particular vulnerabilities (Rogers & Lange, 2013). This can be a problem because different kinds of vulnerability justify different responses. Nickel (2006) claims that there are two overlapping senses of vulnerability at work with the Belmont Report and in following human research ethics guidelines (p.2141). The first relates to the capacity to give informed consent, which the Belmont Report connects to the principle of respect for autonomy (Nickel, 2006). The second is the sense of vulnerability, as explained by Nickel, which relates to the Belmont Reports principles of justice meaning fairness (Nickel, 2006). The concern here is that vulnerable groups may be overrepresented in research for example, when the group lacks understanding or power to refuse participation (Rogers & Lange, 2013). This is explicit in the Belmont Report. Within the study, it was also explained that vulnerable groups may be excluded from research and thereby be excluded from the benefits of participation in clinical trials and subsequent access to treatments for which research evidence exists (Nickel, 2006). Research ethics guidelines that simply list groups likely to be vulnerable run a risk of stereotyping, and of the consequent harms of unjustified exclusion of research (Rogers & Lange, 2013, p. 2141).
Yes, I believe the authors within the article…
Open Document