Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Beneficence as a principle in human research

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Monash Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Beneficence is one of the four principles that form the basis of the Australian National Statement. The aim of this paper is to explore the philosophical development of this principle and to clarify the role that beneficence plays in contemporary discussions about human research ethics. By examining the way that guidance documents, particularly the National Statement, treats beneficence we offer guidance to researchers and human research ethics committee members on the practical application of what can be a conceptually difficult principle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). 2012. Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies. Canberra.

  • Beauchamp, Tom. 2013. The principle of beneficence in applied ethics. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/principle-beneficence/.

  • Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consumer Health Forums of Australia (CHF). 2013. Consumer guide to clinical trials, updated June 2013, www.chf.org.au.

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, (CIOMS) and World Health Organisation (WHO), International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2002.

  • Faden, R., and Shebaya, S. 2010. Public health ethics. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/publichealth-ethics/.

  • Frankena, William K. 1982. Beneficence is an ethics of virtue, 63–81. Dordrecht: Beneficence and Health Care, Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottesman, Michael M., and Alan L. Sandler. 2004. Guidelines for the Conduct of Research Involving Human Subjects at the National Institutes of Health.

  • Hume, David. 1777. An enquiry concerning the principles of Morals, Project Gutenberg EBook # 9662.

  • Israel, Mark, and Iain Hay. 2006. Research ethics for social scientists. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, Mark. 2014. Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. 1969. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus 98(2): 29–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, Anthony J. 2011. Political Research and Human Research Ethics Committees. Australian Journal of Political Science 46(1): 141–156. doi:10.1080/10361146.2010.544287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart. 1879. Utilitarianism, reprinted from Fraser’s Magazine, 7th ed. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Project Gutenberg EBook #11224.

  • Miller, Franklin G., Michelle M. Mello, and Steven Joffe. 2008. Incidental findings in human subjects research: What do investigators owe research participants? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36(2): 271–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munson, Ronald. 2008. In Intervention and reflection: Basic issues in medical ethics, 8th ed, ed. Ronald Munson. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NCPHS). 1979. The Belmont Report (18 April 1979).

  • Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2013. ANTICIPATE and COMMUNICATE Ethical Management of Incidental and Secondary Findings in the Clinical, Research, and Direct-to-Consumer Contexts, Washington DC, December 2013, http://www.bioethics.gov.

  • Rhodes, Rosamond. 2005. Rethinking research ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 5(1): 7–28. doi:10.1080/15265160590900678.

  • Rogers, Wendy, Catriona Mackenzie, and Susan Dodds. 2012. Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5(2): 11–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Adam. 1790. The theory of moral sentiments, 6th ed, MetaLibri 2005 reproduction.

  • The Holy Bible, King James Version. Cambridge Edition: 1769; King James Bible Online. 2016. www.kingjamesbibleonline.org.

  • Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) and Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. 2000. Note for the Guidance on Good Clinical Practice (CPMP/ICH/135/95) Annotated with TGA comments, July 2000.

  • Woods, Simon, and Pauline McCormack. 2013. Disputing the ethics of research: The challenge from bioethics and patient activism to the interpretation of the declaration of Helsinki in clinical trials. Bioethics 27(5): 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian Pieper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pieper, I., Thomson, C.J.H. Beneficence as a principle in human research. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 34, 117–135 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-016-0061-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-016-0061-3

Keywords

Navigation