Ancillary Care Obligations of Medical Researchers: An Inquiry into the Partial Entrustment Model
| Project/Area Number |
15K02021
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Philosophy/Ethics
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Ritsumeikan University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2015-04-01 – 2019-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2018)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,950,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥450,000)
Fiscal Year 2017: ¥650,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥150,000)
Fiscal Year 2016: ¥650,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥150,000)
Fiscal Year 2015: ¥650,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥150,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 追加的ケア / 部分委託モデル / 研究倫理 / 健康潜在能力パラダイム / 健康ケイパビリティパラダイムモデル / 偶発的所見 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
Recently, the issue of ancillary care in the context of medical research, especially research conducted in developing countries, has been gaining attention. Although the most influential theoretical model on this issue is the partial-entrustment model(PEM) proposed by Henry Richardson, this model has been controversial due to its limited scope. This study investigated how far this model can be useful in providing guidance on ancillary care obligations for medical researchers. The results are as follows: (1) on the settings of medical research conducted in developed countries, PEM can ground and delineate medical researchers' obligations to handling incidental findings discovered in research participants; (2) when it comes to addressing the ancillary care questions for medical researchers working in developing countries, PEM fails to provide a comprehensive picture of these obligations; (3) although Ruger's health capability paradigm can reinforce PEM, it cannot be an alternative model.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
医学研究を実施する過程で発生する追加的ケアの問題や偶発的所見の問題は、その対処の必要性が世界的にも認められている反面、そもそもなぜ医学研究者はそれらの問題に対処する責務を負うのか、また負うとしても、いついかなる場合にどこまでの責務を負うのかについては、必ずしも十分な理論的根拠が構築されていない現状がある。本研究はその欠を補い、医学研究者が被験者に対して具体的にどのような責務を負うのかを一定程度明確化する点で、社会と調和した医学研究の推進に向けて哲学・倫理学の立場からの寄与を果たすものである。
|
Report
(5 results)
Research Products
(4 results)
