Skip to main content

Pregnancy, Vulnerability, and the Risk of Exploitation in Clinical Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Research Involving Pregnant Women

Part of the book series: Research Ethics Forum ((REFF,volume 3))

Abstract

Pregnant women and their foetuses have long been regarded as vulnerable, where being vulnerable indicates a likelihood of suffering harm. This perception has led to the widespread exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research, in order to protect foetuses and the women who carry them from any dangers associated with exposure to experimental therapeutic products or interventions. This chapter explores the ways in which pregnant women are vulnerable, and the potential risk of exploitation if pregnant women are enrolled in clinical research. There are three overlapping sources of vulnerability: inherent, situational, and pathogenic, and each of these may be dispositional (i.e. potential) or occurrent (i.e. requiring immediate action to limit harm). We argue that while pregnant women may experience one or more forms of vulnerability, in general they are not at risk of exploitation during research because they do not provide researchers with the opportunity to conduct more efficient research. We conclude with policy suggestions for conducting research with pregnant women that responds to vulnerability, promotes autonomy, and supports fair access to research participation. We focus on pregnancy registries, parental consent, and minimal risk research limits.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, in the United States, the Tuskegee study prompted the National Research Act 1974, which required the establishment of institutional review boards at institutions receiving federal grants and set up the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research that produced the Belmont Report in 1979. In New Zealand the research ethics framework was based on recommendations in the Cartwright Report that investigated unethical research on women conducted by Dr Green (Cartwright 1988).

  2. 2.

    The concept of vulnerability is not limited to human persons, as many living creatures including non-human animals have the capacity to suffer harms, and are thereby vulnerable.

  3. 3.

    The following discussion of vulnerability draws upon existing accounts of a typology of vulnerability developed by one of the authors (Rogers) in collaboration with others (i.e., Rogers et al. 2012; Lange et al. 2013; Mackenzie et al. 2014).

  4. 4.

    The term exploitation is also often used in a third way, as a moral amplifier, to signify that the author vehemently objects to a practice. Such examples are excluded from our analysis because they are not intended to refer to exploitation in a technical sense.

  5. 5.

    Some research ethics guidelines require minimising risk with vulnerable populations. We argue that risk should be minimised to the greatest extent possible with all research populations and we prefer an ethical model that focuses on risk/potential benefit balance rather than risk minimisation.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, the combined clinical care and research registry described in Bentley et al. (2007).

  7. 7.

    For an account of the ethical concept of the foetus as patient, and associated beneficence-based obligations, see McCullough et al 2005.

  8. 8.

    Deliberative forums, such as citizens’ juries, provide opportunities for members of the public to receive expert information and articulate, share and deliberate about relevant issues. Their informed views are taken to be reflective of community values (Murphy 2005).

References

  • Ashcroft, R. 2016. Ethical issues in a trial of maternal gene transfer to improve foetal growth. In Clinical research involving pregnant women, eds. F. Baylis and A. Ballantyne, 247–263. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australia (The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee). 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research (updated March 2014). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., and S. Halperin. 2012. Research involving pregnant women: trials and tribulations. Clinical Investigation 2(2): 139–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, S.M., J.L. Melville, B.D. Berry, and W.J. Katon. 2007. Implementing a clinical and research registry in obstetrics: Overcoming the barriers. General Hospital Psychiatry 29(3): 192–198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Allen. 1985. Ethics, efficiency, and the market. Totowa: Rowman and Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, S. 1988. The report of the committee of inquiry into allegations concerning the treatment of cervical cancer at national women’s hospital and into other related matters 1988. Auckland: GPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIOMS (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences). 2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf. Accessed 3 Oct 2016.

  • Cragan, J. 2014. Medication use during pregnancy. BMJ 349: g5252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, R.A., and J.D. Arras. 1998. AZT trials and tribulations. Hastings Centre Report 28(6): 26–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DHHS (US Department of Health and Human Services). 2009. Code of Federal Regulations: Title 45, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects. See Subpart B – Additional Protections for Pregnant Women, Human Fetuses and Neonates Involved in Research. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html#subpartb. Accessed 3 Oct 2016.

  • DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Office of Research on Women’s Health). 2011. Enrolling pregnant women: Issues in clinical research. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, E., D. Wendler, and C. Grady. 2002. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283(20): 2701–2711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faden, R., N. Kass, S. Goodman, P. Pronovost, S. Tunis, and T. Beauchamp. 2013. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: A departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Ethical Oversight of Learning Health Care Systems, Hastings Center Report Special Report 43(1): S16–S27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M. 2008. The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20(1): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. 1985. Protecting the vulnerable: A reanalysis of our social responsibilities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J., and E. Emanuel (eds.). 2008. Exploitation and developing countries: The ethics of clinical research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, D., and D. Mangin. 2016. Does my bias look big in this? In Clinical research involving pregnant women, eds. F. Baylis and A. Ballantyne, 197–208. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, S.A. 2008. Vulnerability in research and health care: Describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics 22: 191–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. 2007. Ethical considerations for research involving prisoners. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla, R. 2016. Equipoise, uncertainty, and inductive risk in research involving pregnant women. In Clinical research involving pregnant women, eds. F. Baylis and A. Ballantyne, 179–196. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, M.M., W. Rogers, and S. Dodds. 2013. Vulnerability in research ethics: A way forward. Bioethics 27(6): 333–340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Langston, L. 2016. Better safe than sorry: Risk, stigma, and research during pregnancy. In Clinical research involving pregnant women, eds. F. Baylis and A. Ballantyne, 33–50. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Little, M.O., A.D. Lyerly, A.C. Mastroianni, and R.R. Faden. 2016. Ethics and research with pregnant women: Lessons from HIV/AIDS. In Clinical research involving pregnant women, eds. F. Baylis and A. Ballantyne, 227–246. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna, F. 2009. Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2: 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyerly, A.D., M. Little, and R. Faden. 2008. The second wave: Toward ethical inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1(2): 5–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C., W.A. Rogers, and S. Dodds. 2014. What is vulnerability and why should it matter for moral theory? Introduction. In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, eds. C. Mackenzie, W.A. Rogers, and S. Dodds, 1–29. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrus, M.R. 1997. The Nuremberg war crimes trial 1945–46: A documentary history. Boston, Massachusetts: Bedford Books; for primary source data go to Harvard Law School Library. 2003. Nuremberg trials documents: a digital collection. Harvard University on-line. http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview. Accessed 7 July 2014.

  • McCullough, L.B., J.H. Coverdale, and F.A. Chervenak. 2005. A comprehensive ethical framework for responsibly designing and conducting pharmacologic research that involves pregnant women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 193(3 SUPPL.): 901–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, N.J. 2005. Citizen deliberation in setting health-care priorities. Health Expectations 8: 172–181.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • NIH (National Institutes of Health). 1994. NIH guidelines for the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in clinical research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not94-100.html. Accessed 29 June 2014.

  • NIH (National Institutes of Health). 1998. NIH policy and guidelines on the inclusion of children as participants in research involving human subjects. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-024.html. Accessed 29 June 2014.

  • Participants (Participants in the 2001 Conference on Ethical Aspects of Research in Developing Countries). 2002. Ethics: Fair benefits for research in developing countries. Science. 298: 2133–2134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, T. 2011. From the ideal market to the ideal clinic: Constructing a normative standard of fairness for human subjects research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36(1): 79–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodger, M.A., D. Makropoulos, M. Walker, E. Keely, A. Karovitch, and P.S. Wells. 2003. Participation of pregnant women in clinical trials: Will they participate and why? American Journal of Perinatology 20(2): 69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W. 2014. Vulnerability and bioethics. In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, eds. C. Mackenzie, W. Rogers, and S. Dodds, 60–87. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W., C. Mackenzie, and S. Dodds. 2012. Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5(2): 11–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seigel, A. 2008. Kantian ethics, exploitation, and multinational clinical trials. In Exploitation and developing countries: The ethics of clinical research, eds. J.S. Hawkins and E.J. Emanuel, 175–205. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research). 1979. The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm. Accessed 26 Mar 2015.

  • Valdman, M. 2009. A theory of wrongful exploitation. Philosophers’ Imprint 9(6): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendler, D. 2000. Informed consent, exploitation and whether it is possible to conduct human subjects research without either one. Bioethics 14(4): 310–339.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, A. 1996. Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. 2003. Bodies for sale: Ethics and exploitation in the human body trade. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A. 1997. Exploitation. In Exploitation: Key concepts in critical theory, eds. K. Nielsen and R. Ware, 2–26. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press International.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association. 2013. WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Accessed 3 Oct 2016.

  • Zion, D., L. Gillam, and B. Loff. 2000. The Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nature Medicine 6(6): 615–617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Ballantyne BSc, PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ballantyne, A., Rogers, W. (2016). Pregnancy, Vulnerability, and the Risk of Exploitation in Clinical Research. In: Baylis, F., Ballantyne, A. (eds) Clinical Research Involving Pregnant Women. Research Ethics Forum, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26512-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26512-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26510-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26512-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics