Interests Divided: Risks to Disaster Research Subjects vs. Benefits to Future Disaster Victims

Chapter
Part of the Public Health Ethics Analysis book series (PHES, volume 2)

Abstract

The increase in number of severe disasters worldwide, together with the professionalization of first responders, rescue teams and humanitarian organisations, has led to the emergence of a new kind of research, ‘disaster research.’ There are presently no research rules or codes of ethics that take into account the status of disaster victims as a vulnerable population, and the need to articulate an ethical justification for conducting disaster research has gathered momentum.

This chapter explores the key ethical requirements for conducting research on victims of disasters (including voluntary informed consent, and a favourable benefit-harm ratio), examines whether these requirements can be realised and are sufficient to justify research in disaster settings, and concludes with recommendations for defining the fundamental ethical duty of all humanitarian responders in the immediate response phase of a disaster.

Keywords

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Disaster Victim Disaster Research Nuremberg Code Disaster Condition 
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. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. 1995. US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  2. Advisory Group on Research in Emergencies. 1997. Annex—Ethics Template. http://apps.who.int/eha/resource/pubs/160499p.htm. Accessed 11 May 2011.
  3. Annas, George J. 2010. Worst case bioethics. Death, disaster, and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barzilay, Ezra, Nicolas Schaad, Roc Magoire, Kam S. Mung, Jacques Boncy, Georges A. Dahourou, Eric D. Mintz, Maria W. Steenland, John F. Vertefeuille, and Jordan W. Tappero. 2013. Cholera surveillance during Haiti epidemic—The first 2 years. New England Journal of Medicine 368:599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohannon, Jean. 2011. War as a laboratory for trauma research. Science 331:1261–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boylan, John F, Niamh P. Conton, Mohammad J. Jaigirdar. 2011. Consent in emergency care research. The Lancet 378:25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1976. 45 CFR 46.Google Scholar
  8. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2009. 45 CFR 46.102 (D).Google Scholar
  9. Council for International Organizations of Medical Science (CIOMS). 2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2013.
  10. Council of Europe. 2005. Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/195.htm. Accessed 7 June 2012.
  11. Emanuel, Ezekiel J., and Jerry Menikoff. 2011. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. New England Journal of Medicine 365:1145–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emanuel, Ezekiel J., David Wendler, and Christine Grady. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association 283 (20): 2701–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epstein, Mirian, and Mark Wilson. 2011. Consent in emergency care research. The Lancet 378:26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farmer, Paul. 2005. Pathologies of power: Health, human rights, and the new war on the poor, 205. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald, F. Scott. 1925. The Great Gatsby. New York: Charles Scribner.Google Scholar
  16. Fink, Sheri. 2009. The deadly choices at Memorial. New York Times, 25 Aug.Google Scholar
  17. Food, and Drug Administration (FDA). 1996. Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research. 21CFR 50.24.Google Scholar
  18. Holm, S. 2011. Commentary: Systems, rules and the costs of being ethical—A response to D. Chalmers and to S. Whitney and C. Schneider. Journal of Internal Medicine 269:403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hornblum, Allen M. 1998. Acres of skin: Human experiments at Holmesburg prison. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2006. Ethical considerations for research involving prisoners. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jonas, Hans. 1969. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus 98 (2): 219–247.Google Scholar
  22. Kahn, Jeffrey. 2003. It’s a small world after all: Ethics and the response to SARS. Hastings Center Report 33 (3): 6.Google Scholar
  23. Katz, Jay. 1993. Ethics and clinical research revisited: A tribute to Henry K. Beecher. Hastings Center Report 23 (5): 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Largent, Emily A., Steven Joffe, Franklin G. Miller. 2011. Can research and care be ethically integrated? Hastings Center Report 41 (4): 37–46.Google Scholar
  25. Leaning, Jennifer. 2001. Ethics of research in refugee populations. The Lancet 357:1432–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maschke, Karen J. 2008. Human research protections: Time for regulatory reform? Hastings Center Report 38 (2): 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Médecins, Sans Frontières (MSF). 2010. Operational research: Definition, purposes and procedures (A policy framework). http://fieldresearch.msf.org/msf/bitstream/10144/190889/1/OR%20Policy%202010.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2013
  28. Miller, Franklin, and Ezekiel Emanuel. 2008. Quality improvement research and informed consent. New England Journal of Medicine 358:765–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral research. 1976. Report and recommendations: Research involving prisoners. Bethesda. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76–131.Google Scholar
  30. Nuremberg, Code. 1949. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html. Accessed 5 June 2013.
  31. Obasogie, Osagie K. 2010. Prisoners as human subjects: A closer look at the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations to loosen current restrictions on using prisoners in scientific research. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 6 (1): 41–82.Google Scholar
  32. Physician for Human Rights. 2009. Nowhere to turn: Failure to protect, support and assure justice for Darfuri women. https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/nowhere-to-turn.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2013.
  33. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2013. Safeguarding children. Pediatric medical countermeasure research. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  34. Reed, Holly. 2002. Research ethics in complex humanitarian emergencies. Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10481.html Accessed 18 June 2013.
  35. Rid, Annette, and David Wendler. 2011. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (2): 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts, Ian, David Pietro-Merino, Haleema Shakur, Iain Chalmers, and Jon Nicholl. 2011. Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. The Lancet 377:1071–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothman, David J. 1987. Ethics and human experimentation: Henry Beecher revisited. New England Journal of Medicine 317:1195–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shamoo, Adil E., and David B. Resnik. 2003. Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Shuster, Evelyne. 1997. Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1436–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shuster, Evelyne. 1998. The Nuremberg Code: Hippocratic ethics and human rights. The Lancet 351:974–977.Google Scholar
  41. Solbakk, Jan H. 2011. In the ruins of Babel: Pitfalls on the way toward a universal language for research ethics and benefit sharing. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20:341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tabuchi, Hiroko. 2012. An anniversary of ‘heartbreaking grief’ in Japan. New York Times, 11 March. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/a-year-later-effects-of-japans-disaster-are-still-unfolding.html. Accessed 24 June 2013.
  43. Wendler, David. 2005. Protecting subjects who cannot give consent: Toward a better standard for “minimal” risks. Hastings Center Report 35 (5): 37–43.Google Scholar
  44. Whitney, Simon N., and Carl E. Schneider. 2011. Viewpoint: A method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research. Journal of Internal Medicine 269:396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. World Health Organization (WHO). 1995. Guidelines for good clinical practice (GCP) for trials on pharmaceutical products. http://apps.who.int/prequal/info_general/documents/TRS850/WHO_TRS_850-Annex3.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2013. Google Scholar
  46. World Health Organization (WHO). 1997. Report of consultation on applied health research priorities in complex emergencies. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  47. World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Applied health research in emergency settings. Document: 12983. http://cidbimena.desastres.hn/docum/crid/Enero2006/CD-2/pdf/eng/doc12983/doc12983.htm. Accessed 11 June 2013.
  48. World Health Organization (WHO). 2002. Handbook for good clinical research practice (GCP). http://apps.who.int/prequal/info_general/documents/GCP/gcp1.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2013.
  49. World Medical Association (WMA). 2008. Declaration of Helsinki—ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects 1964.Accessed 5 June 2013.Google Scholar
  50. Zhang, Sarah. 2013. Haiyan prompts risk research. Nature 503:324. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Veterans Affairs Medical CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations