Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 17–28 | Cite as

Protecting and respecting the vulnerable: existing regulations or further protections?

  • Stephanie R. Solomon


Scholars and policymakers continue to struggle over the meaning of the word “vulnerable” in the context of research ethics. One major reason for the stymied discussions regarding vulnerable populations is that there is no clear distinction between accounts of research vulnerabilities that exist for certain populations and discussions of research vulnerabilities that require special regulations in the context of research ethics policies. I suggest an analytic process by which to ascertain whether particular vulnerable populations should be contenders for additional regulatory protections. I apply this process to two vulnerable populations: the cognitively vulnerable and the economically vulnerable. I conclude that a subset of the cognitively vulnerable require extra protections while the economically vulnerable should be protected by implementing existing regulations more appropriately and rigorously. Unless or until the informed consent process is more adequately implemented and the distributive justice requirement of the Belmont Report is emphasized and operationalized, the economically disadvantaged will remain particularly vulnerable to the harm of exploitation in research.


Vulnerable populations Federal regulations Economically vulnerable Cognitive impairment Mission creep Research ethics 



The author would like to thank Ann Jeschke for her tireless editing and formatting assistance. The author also acknowledges the financial support from grant UL1 RR024992 from the NIH National Center for Research Resources.


  1. 1.
    Levine, Carol, Ruth Faden, Christine Grady, Dale Hammerschmidt, Lisa Eckenwiler, and Jeremy Sugarman. 2004. The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. American Journal of Bioethics 4(3): 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ruof, Mary C. 2004. Vulnerability, vulnerable populations, and policy. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14(4): 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGee, Glen, ed. 2004. American Journal of Bioethics 4(3).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moreno, Jonathan, Arthur L. Caplan, and Paul Root Wolpe. 1998. Updating protections for human subjects involved in research. Journal of the American Medical Association 280(22): 1951–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rose, Susan L., and Charles E. Pietri. 2002. Workers as research subjects: A vulnerable population. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 44(9): 801–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stineman, Margaret G., and David W. Musick. 2001. Protection of human subjects with disability: Guidelines for research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 82(12S): 9–14.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical Research. 1978. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    White, Ronald F. 2007. Institutional Review Board mission creep: The Common Rule, social science, and the nanny state. Independent Review 11(4): 547–564.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 2009. Protection of human subjects. 45 CFR 46. Accessed Jan 9, 2013.
  10. 10.
    Sun, M. 1981. Inmates sue to keep research in prisons. Science 212(4495): 650–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein, Steven. 2007. Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mastroianni, Anna, and Jeffrey Kahn. 2001. Swinging on the pendulum: Shifting views of justice in human subjects’ research. Hastings Center Report 31(3): 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keith-Spiegel, Patricia, and Gerald P. Koocher. 2005. The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit? Ethics and Behavior 15(4): 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martinson, Brian C., Melissa S. Anderson, and Raymond De Vries. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435: 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edwards, S.J.L., S. Kirchin, and R. Huxtable. 2004. Research ethics committees and paternalism. Journal of Medical Ethics 30(1): 88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garrard, E., and A. Dawson. 2005. What is the role of the research ethics committee? Paternalism, inducements, and harm in research ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(7): 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, Franklin G., and Allen Wertheimer. 2007. Facing up to paternalism in research ethics. Hastings Center Report 37(3): 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kipnis, Kenneth. 2001. Vulnerability in research subjects: A bioethical taxonomy. In Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants, vol. 2, G-1. Bethesda: National Bioethics Advisory Council.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paasche-Orlow, Michael K., Holly A. Taylor, and Frederick L. Brancati. 2003. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine 348(8): 721–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joffe, Steven, E. Francis Cook, Paul D. Cleary, Jeffrey W. Clark, and Jane C. Weeks. 2001. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: A cross-sectional survey. Lancet 358(9295): 1772–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marshall, Patricia A. 2006. Informed consent in international health research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1(1): 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sudore, Rebecca L., Seth C. Landefeld, Brie A. Williams, Deborah E. Barnes, Karla Lindquist, and Dean Schillinger. 2006. Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine 21(8): 867–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    DuBois, James M., Laura Beskow, Jean Campbell, Karen Dugosh, David Festinger, Sarah Hartz, Rosalina Hartz, and Charles Lidz. 2012. Restoring balance: A consensus statement on the protection of vulnerable research participants. American Journal of Public Health 102(12): 2220–2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jeste, Dilip V., ed. 2002. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 10(2).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Denny, Colleen C., and Christine Grady. 2007. Clinical research with economically disadvantaged populations. British Medical Journal 33(7): 382–385.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stone, T.Howard. 2003. The invisible vulnerable: The economically and educationally disadvantaged subjects of clinical research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31(1): 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Emanuel, Ezekiel J. 2005. Undue inducement: Nonsense on stilts? The American Journal of Bioethics 5(5): 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bentley, J.P., and P.G. Thacker. 2004. The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process. Journal of Medical Ethics 30(3): 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Halpern, Scott D., H.T. Jason, David Casarett Karlawish, Jesse A. Berlin, and David A. Asch. 2004. Empirical assessment of whether moderate payments are undue or unjust inducements for participation in clinical trials. Archives of Internal Medicine 164(7): 801–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Emanuel, Ezekiel J., David Wendler, Jack Killen, and Christine Grady. 2004. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. Journal of Infections Disease 189(5): 930–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wertheimer, Allen. 1999. Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Varmus, Harold. 1994. NIH guidelines on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research. Federal Register 59(59): 14508–14513.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weijer, Charles, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. 2000. Protecting communities in biomedical research. Science 289(5482): 1142–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weijer, Charles, Gary Goldsand, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. 1999. Protecting communities in research: Current guidelines and limits of extrapolation. Nature Genetics 23: 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Benatar, Solomon R. 2002. Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries. Social Science and Medicine 54(7): 1131–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Healthcare EthicsSaint Louis UniversitySaint LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations