medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán

2005, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Rev Invest Clin 2005; 57 (5)

Bioethical reflections: Necessity to promote altruistic attitudes toward on medical research in human beings

Ocampo-Martínez J

Language: Spanish
References: 47
Page: 725-734
PDF size: 75.63 Kb.


ABSTRACT

In this paper some bioethical reflections about medical research in human beings are made. The social moral obligation to increase this kind of investigation, with the purpose of enlarging resources to take care of the health of society, as well as to comply with the moral duty of keeping the integrity of the participating subjects, have placed to medical investigators face to face with ethical problems that may affect the development of this essential activity for human healthcare. On one hand, in the present context, the resistance of both healthy and sick individuals to collaborate in the studies, as possible, according to a wrong autonomous decision (irreflexive individualism). On the other hand, the shortage of anticipating strategies that promotes altruistic attitudes to take into account, the suffering experiences proper of human nature. In this regard, the author focuses his reflections, from the principle of social welfare that underlies medical research and of the necessity of providing instrumentation for some educational policy that without lacking respect for the autonomy of subjects, would propitiate the participation of society so that humanity would continue to benefit from the achievements of this type of research.


REFERENCES

  1. Schaffner FK. Research Methodology. Conceptual Issues. In: Reich W, editor. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. 2nd ed. London: Simon & Shuster and Prentice Hall International; 1995; pp. 2270-8.

  2. Reglamento de la Ley General de Salud en materia de investigación para la salud. En: Ley General de Salud. México: Porrúa; 2000.

  3. Trauth JM, Musa D, Siminoff L, Jewell IK, Ricci E. Public attitudes regarding willingness to participate in medical research studies. J Health Soc Policy 2000; 12(2): 23-43.

  4. Matsui K, Kita Y, Ueshima H. Informed consent, participation in, and withdrawal from a population based cohort study involving genetic analysis. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 385-92.

  5. Ellis PM, Butow PN. Focus group interviews examining attitudes to randomized trials among breast cancer patients and the general community. Aust NZ J Public Health 1998; 5: 528-31.

  6. Apolone G, Mosconi P. Knowledge and opinions about clinical research. A cross-sectional survey in a sample of Italian citizens. J Amb Care Manag 2003; 26: 88-90.

  7. Schulman KA. Understanding attitudes toward clinical research. J Amb Care Manag 2003; 1: 83-7.

  8. Valentino J, Andrikowsky MA, Wood TA. Population attitudes toward oncology clinical trials. J Ky Med Asoc 1999; 111-7.

  9. Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Miller DS, Hurwitz S. Attitudes toward clinical trials among patients and the public. J Amer Med Assoc 1982; 248: 968-70.

  10. Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowsky E, Stocking C, Kodish E, et al. Perception of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. J Clin Oncol 1995; 5: 1062-72.

  11. Rodger MA, Makropoulos D, Walker M, Keely E, Karovith A, Wells PS. Participation of pregnant women in clinical trials: will they participate and why? Am J Perinatol 2003; 2: 69-76.

  12. Hermann R, Heger-Mahn D, Mahler M, Seiber-Grafe M, Kipling C, Breithaupt-Grugler K, et al. Adverse events and discomfort in studies on healthy subjects: the volunteer’s perspective. A survey conducted by the German Association for applied Human Pharmacology. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 53: 207-14.

  13. Tishler CL, Bartholomae S. The recruitment of normal healthy volunteers: A review of the literature on the use of financial incentives. J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 42: 365-75.

  14. Bigorra J, Banos JE. Weight of financial reward in the decision by medical students and experienced healthy volunteers to participate in clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 38: 443-6.

  15. Grady C. Money for research participation: Does it jeopardize informed consent? Amer J Bioethics 2001; 1(2): 40-4.

  16. Kuczewski K. Is informed consent enough?: Monetary incentives for research participation and integrity of biomedicine. Am J Bioethics 2001; 1(2): 49-51.

  17. Anderson JA, Weijer C. The research subject as entrepreneur. Am J Bioethics 2001; 1(2): 67-9.

  18. Zink S. Maybe we should pay them more. Amer J Bioethics 2001; 1(2): 88-9.

  19. Rush MC, Phillips JS, Panek PE. Subject recruitment bias: The paid volunteer subject. Percept Mot Skills 1978; 47: 443-9.

  20. Lemmens T, Elliot C. Justice for the professional guinea pigs. Am J Bioethics 2001; 1(2): 51.

  21. Singh SD, Williams AJ. The prevalence and incidence of medical conditions in healthy pharmaceutical company employees who volunteer to participate in medical research. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 25-31.

  22. Schechter D, Singer TM, Kuperman J, Endicott J. Selection of “normal” control subjects for psychiatric research: Update on a model for centralized recruitment. Psychiatry Res 1998; 79: 175-85.

  23. Piepper A. Ética y moral. Barcelona: Crítica; 1991.

  24. Aranguren JL. Ética. Barcelona: Altaya; 1994.

  25. Guariglia O. Moralidad, ética universalista y sujeto moral. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1996.

  26. Ocampo MJ. La bioética y la crisis de la ética médica tradicional. Ann Med ABC Hosp 2001; 92-6.

  27. Toulmin S. How Medicine Saved the Life of Ethics. Persp Biol Med 1982; 25: 736-50.

  28. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.

  29. Figueroa JG. El significado del consentimiento informado dentro de los procesos de investigación social sobre reproducción. En: Santillán DP, Cabral C A, Soto RL. El consentimiento informado en la práctica clínica y en la investigación médica. Rev Invest Clin 2003; 55(3): 322-38.

  30. Lukes S. Individualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1973.

  31. Fromm E. Ética y psicoanálisis. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1992.

  32. Olivé L. ¿Son éticamente neutrales la ciencia y la tecnología? El bien, el mal y la razón. México: Paidós-Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2000.

  33. Rescher N. Razón y valores en la era científico-tecnológica. Buenos Aires: Paidós; 1999.

  34. Veatch RM. Theory of Medical Ethics. New York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers; 1981.

  35. Callahan D. The Goals of Medicine: Setting new priorities. Hastings Center Report 1996; 26(Suppl 6): 1-28.

  36. Pérez-Tamayo R. Ética Médica Laica. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica-Colegio Nacional; 2000.

  37. Nicol E. Humanismo y ética. En: Bonifaz NR. El Humanismo en México en las vísperas del siglo XXI. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 1987.

  38. Spinoza B. Ética. México: Porrúa; 1990, p. 1677.

  39. Fromm E. Ética y psicoanálisis. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1996.

  40. Tauber IA. Sick Autonomy. Persp Biol Med 2003; 46: 484-95.

  41. Béjar H. La Cultura del Yo. Madrid: Alianza Editorial; 1993.

  42. Montague P. In the interests of others. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1992.

  43. Kant I. Foundations of the Methaphysics of Morals. New York: Macmillan; 1987.

  44. Camps V. Paradojas del individualismo. Barcelona: Crítica; 1999.

  45. Rorty R. Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989.

  46. Engelhardt T. The Foundations of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.

  47. Santillán DP, Cabral CA, Soto RL. El consentimiento informado en la práctica clínica y en la investigación médica. Rev Invest Clin 2003; 55(3): 322-38.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com