Advertisement

Proxy Consent in Nontherapeutic Settings

  • Grzegorz Mazur
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 112)

Abstract

Two major lines of argumentation against the justifiability of proxy consent for nontherapeutic research offered by Ramsey and the earlier May unfolded dialectically in the course of their debate with Richard McCormick, and so it seems appropriate to place the latter’s most relevant views on the matter here, even though technically they ought to be classified as part of the following chapter, which examines arguments that favor the validity of proxy consent in nontherapeutic situations. What is known as the Ramsey and May vs. McCormick debate began in the 1970s and even though its content centered largely on children subjected to nontherapeutic research, it can also be applied by extension to other classes of incompetent subjects. Despite the numerous ethical insights that they shared and the support they offered one another in the exchange against McCormick, Ramsey and May developed their own approaches, which are not entirely equivalent. For the sake of clarity I have decided to present them separately and in contrast to McCormick’s position.

Keywords

Moral Responsibility Minimal Risk Moral Obligation Moral Agent National Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beecher, H. 1970. Research and the Individual. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  2. May, W. E. 1974. “Experimenting on Human Subjects.” Linacre Quarterly 41:238–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. May, W. E. 1977. Human Existence, Medicine, and Ethics: Reflections on Human Life. Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press.Google Scholar
  4. May, W. E. 2007. “Proxy Consent for Nontherapeutic Experimentation.” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 7(2):239–47.Google Scholar
  5. McCormick, R. A. 1975. “Notes on Moral Theology.” Theological Studies 36:77–129.Google Scholar
  6. Ramsey, P. 1976. “The Enforcement of Morals: Nontherapeutic Research on Children.” The Hastings Center Report 6:21–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ramsey, P. 2002. The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Worsfold, V. 1974. “A Philosophical Justification of Children’s Rights.” Harvard Educational Review 44(1):142–57.Google Scholar
  10. Bartholome, W. G. 1977a. “Proxy Consent in the Medical Context: The Infant as Person.” In National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Appendix: Research Involving Children. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 77-0005, sec. 3, 23–24. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Bartholome, W. G. 1977b. “The Ethics of Non-Therapeutic Clinical Research on Children.” In National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Appendix: Research Involving Children. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 77-0005, sec. 3, 1–19. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  12. McCormick, R. A. 1981b. “Proxy Consent in the Experimentation Situation.” In How Brave a New World? Dilemmas in Bioethics, 51–71. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. McCormick, R. A. 1981c. “Sharing in Sociality: Children and Experimentation.” In How Brave a New World? Dilemmas in Bioethics, 87–98. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  14. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1977b. “Statement of Commissioners Height, King, Louisell, Ryan and Seldin.” In Research Involving Children: Report and Recommendations. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 77-0004, 123–33. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  15. Toulmin, S. 1976. “Fetal Experimentation: Moral Issues and Institutional Controls.” In National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Appendix: Research on the Fetus. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76-128, sec. 10, 1–26. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  16. Tollman, S. M. 2001. “Fair Partnerships Support Ethical Research.” British Medical Journal 323:1417–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engelhardt, H. T. 1979. “Basic Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Biomedical and Behavioral Research Involving Human Subjects.” In National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0013, Appendix, vol. 1, sec. 8, 1–45. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dominican College of Philosophy and TheologyKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations