The creation of the Belmont Report and its effect on ethical principles: a historical study

Author:

Nagai HiroyukiORCID,Nakazawa EisukeORCID,Akabayashi AkiraORCID

Abstract

AbstractThe Belmont Report continues to be held in high regard, and most bioethical analyses conducted in recent years have presumed that it affects United States federal regulations. However, the assessments of the report’s creators are sharply divided. Understanding the historic reputation of this monumental report is thus crucial. We first recount the historical context surrounding the creation of this report. Subsequently, we review the process involved in developing ethical guidelines and describe the report’s features. Additionally, we analyze the effect of unfolding events on the subsequent creation of federal regulations, especially on gene therapy clinical trials. Moreover, throughout this paper we evaluate the ethical principles outlined in this report and describe how they overlap with the issue of protecting socially vulnerable groups. Based on the analysis, we conclude that the features of the Belmont Report cannot be considered as having affected the basic sections of the federal regulations for ethical reviews that were made uniform in 1981. Nevertheless, regarding the regulations on gene therapy clinical trials—which were at first expected to be applicable to research involving children—in addition to implementing policies regarding the public review of protocols that passed ethical review, this report’s principles are clearly reflected in the key notes that should have been referred to when the report was created.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Medicine

Reference65 articles.

1. Annas, G.J. 1991. Mengele’s Birthmark: the Nuremberg Code in United States Courts. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 7: 17–45.

2. Areen, J. 1985. Regulating human gene therapy. West Virginia Law Review 88 (2): 153–171.

3. Beauchamp, T.L. 1995. Principlism and its alleged competitors. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (3): 181–198.

4. Beauchamp, T.L. 2006. Assessing the Belmont Report. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Medicine 5 (2): 2–3.

5. Beauchamp, T.L. 2007. History and theory in “applied ethics”. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (1): 55–64.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3