Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

North American Perspectives

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Global Bioethics

  • 2879 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews the origin and development of bioethics in the United States and Canada, showing how the social and historical context created a specific, North American understanding of the rights of patients and research subjects. Bioethics, as practiced in the United States and Canada, privileges individual responsibility and autonomy over communal solidarity, and thus, it is at odds with bioethical framework described in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. This disjuncture and the absence of specific recommendations for how to put the principles of the Declaration into practice locally have resulted in a limited awareness of the document in the region. Major actors in the North American bioethical community have not actively promoted the Declaration and it is rarely mentioned in the bioethics literature originating there. This situation suggests that, rather than setting a new agenda for the long-established bioethical community in North America, the Declaration will be more successful if it finds a way to become integrated into existing bioethical agendas.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Annas, G. J. (2005). American bioethics: Crossing human rights and health law boundaries. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas, G. J., & Grodin, M. A. (1998). Human rights and maternal-fetal HIV transmission prevention trials in Africa. American Journal of Public Health, 88(4), 560–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anspach, R. R. (1993). Deciding who lives: Fateful choices in the intensive-care nursery. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1962). Nicomachean ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballantyne, A. J. (2010). How to do research fairly in an unjust world. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(6), 26–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulger, R. E., Bobby, E. M., & Fineberg, H. V. (Eds.). (1995). Society’s choices: Social and ethical decision making in biomedicine. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical (with 2000, 2002 and 2005 amendments). Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/

  • Chambliss, D. F. (1996). Beyond caring: Hospitals, nurses, and the social organization of ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan, O. (2003). Empty ethics: The problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(7), 768–792. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9566.2003.00369.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Empaire, G. (2009). Article 10: Equality, justice and equity. In H. T. Have, M. Jean, & UNESCO (Eds.), The UNESCO universal declaration on bioethics and human rights: Background, principles and application (pp. 173–185). Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god?: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. E. (1996). More than bioethics. The Hastings Center Report, 26(6), 5–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. E., Swazey, J. P., & Watkins, J. C. (2008). Observing bioethics. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glickman, S. W., McHutchison, J. G., Peterson, E. D., Cairns, C. B., Harrington, R. A., Califf, R. M., et al. (2009). Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 360(8), 816–823. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb0803929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griener, G. G., & Storch, J. L. (1992). Hospital ethics committees: Problems in evaluation. HEC Forum, 4(1), 5–18. doi:10.1007/bf00117612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinn, D. E. (2006). Handbook of bioethics and religion. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Have, H. T., & Jean, M. (2009). The UNESCO universal declaration on bioethics and human rights: Background, principles and application. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmaster, C. B. (2001). Bioethics in social context. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jecker, N. A. S., Jonsen, A. R., & Pearlman, R. A. (2007). Bioethics: An introduction to the history, methods, and practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A. R. (1998). The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. V., Green, B. L., Kressin, N. R., Kegeles, S. S., Wang, M. Q., James, S. A., et al. (2008). The legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study: Assessing its impact on willingness to participate in biomedical studies. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 19(4), 1168–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keirns, C., Fetters, M., & De Vries, R. (2009). Bioethics and medical education. In C. Brosnan & B. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of medical education (pp. 174–190). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. A. (1992). Twenty years after. The legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The dangers of difference. The Hastings Center Report, 22(6), 35–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2006). Big pharma: How the world’s biggest drug companies control illness. London: Constable & Robinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, A. J. (2005). Justice and the human development approach to international research. The Hastings Center Report, 35(1), 24–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurie, P., & Wolfe, S. M. (1997). Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. The New England Journal of Medicine, 337(12), 853–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macpherson, C. C. (2007). Global bioethics: did the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights miss the boat? Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(10), 588–590. doi:33/10/588 [pii] 10.1136/jme.2005.013797 [doi].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBurney, C. (2001). Ethics committees and social change. In C. B. Hoffmaster (Ed.), Bioethics in social context (pp. 180–198). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2011). Research across borders: Proceedings of the international research panel of the presidential commission for the study of bioethical issues Washington, DC: Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Retrieved from http://bioethics.gov/cms/sites/default/files/IRP-Proceedings%20and%20Recommendations_0.pdf

  • Revel, M. (2009). Respect for cultural diversity and pluralism. In H. T. Have & M. Jean (Eds.), The UNESCO universal declaration on bioethics and human rights: Background, principles and application (pp. 199–209). Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reverby, S. (2009). Examining Tuskegee: The infamous syphilis study and its legacy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, D. J., Dickens, B. M., & Williams, J. R. (1993). Bioethics in Canada. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuklenk, U. (2010). Defending the indefensible. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 7(1), 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solbakk, J. 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(3), 341–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • United States, National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical & Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, MD/Washington, DC: The Commission for sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, 500 S State Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48103, USA

    Dr. Lucie Kalousova

  2. Department of Medical Education/Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Sociology, Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Prof. Raymond De Vries

Authors
  1. Dr. Lucie Kalousova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Raymond De Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucie Kalousova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pittsburgh, USA

    Henk A.M.J. ten Have

  2. Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland

    Bert Gordijn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Kalousova, L., De Vries, R. (2014). North American Perspectives. In: ten Have, H., Gordijn, B. (eds) Handbook of Global Bioethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2512-6_83

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2512-6_83

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2511-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2512-6

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation