Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics of Research with Decisionally Impaired Patients

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethics in Psychiatry

Part of the book series: International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine ((LIME,volume 45))

Abstract

The justification of non-therapeutic research on incapacitated persons is an ethical problem, because in this situation, both legitimising factors of research – informed consent and therapeutic benefit – are absent and the question arises as to whether such research is morally justifiable at all. The paper will ask if there could be arguments for such research. One argument could be that under certain circumstances, an institutionally decreed global renunciation of any type of research on this group of persons could also be illegitimate. Not doing research can do injury to the principle of Justice because in this manner the needs of a particular group may unjustifiably be ignored. This would aggravate the disadvantaged position of this group in a groundless manner and, in particular, would deprive its members of the basis of self-respect. According to the theory of justice of John Rawls each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with the same liberty for others. These ‘primary goods’ are determined by the freedom and integrity of the person. Precisely this integrity of decisionally impaired persons would be endangered if one would abstain from research and thus relinquish the increase in knowledge related to their disease. Thus one could conclude, at least from Rawls’ first principle that society must take on a duty to guarantee the degrees of freedom for cognitively impaired persons and thus also support the efforts for their healing (Maio 2003).

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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.

    The basic liberties include Rawls’ following liberties: ‘Freedom of political thought and liberty of conscience; freedom of association; and the freedom defined by the liberty and integrity of the person, as well as by the rule of law; and finally the political liberties’ (Rawls 1982, p. 162).

References

  • Ashcroft R (1998) Selection of human research sujects. In: Chadwick R (ed) Encyclopedia of applied ethics, vol 2. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, p 627–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzer P, Rippe KP, Schaber P (1998) Menschenwürde versus Würde der Kreatur. Karl Alber, Freiburg/München

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher D (1987) Gefährdet die moderne Reproduktionsmedizin die menschliche Würde? In: Braun V, Mieth D, Steigleder K (eds) Ethische und rechtliche Fragen der Gentechnologie und der Reproduktionsmedizin. Schweitzer, München, pp 77–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan AL (1984) Is there a duty to serve as a subject in biomedical research? IRB: Rev Human Sub Res 6:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt TH (1979) Basic ethical principles in the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. Tex Rep Biol Med 38:139–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank S, Agich GJ (1985) Nontherapeutic research on subjects unable to grant consent. Clin Res 33:459–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass KC, Speyer-Ofenberg M (1992) Incompetent persons as research subjects and the ethics of minimal risk. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 5:362–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmchen H (2008) Ethische Erwägungen in der klinischen Forschung mit psychisch Kranken. Nervenarzt 79(7):1036–1050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honnefelder L (1998) Zur ethischen Beurteilung von Forschung am Menschen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Forschung an einwilligungsunfähigen Personen. In: Markus P (ed) Möglichkeiten, Risiken und Grenzen der Technik auf dem Weg in die Zukunft. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Bonn, pp 131–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas H (1969) Philosophical reflections on experiments with human subjects. Daedalus 98:219–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman LM (1989) When is the risk minimal enough for children to be research subjects? In: Kopelman LM, Moskop JC (eds) Children and health care. Moral and social issues. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 89–99

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kress H (1999) Menschenwürde im modernen Pluralismus: Wertedebatte – Ethik der Medizin – Nachhaltigkeit. Lutheranisches Verlagshaus, Hannover

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine RL (1986) Ethics and regulation of clinical research. Urban Schwarzenberg, Baltimore/München

    Google Scholar 

  • Maio G (1994) Forschung am Menschen. Eine französische Debatte. Ethik in der Medizin 6(3):143–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Maio G (2002a) Die Forschung am Menschen als ethisches Problem. Philosophische Analyse und historischer Kontext. (Medizin und Philosophie, Bd. 6) Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Maio G (2002b) The cultural specificity of research ethics – or why ethical debate in France is different. J Med Ethics 28:147–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maio G (2002c) The relevance of the principle of justice for research on cognitively impaired patients. Theor Med Bioeth – Philos Med Res Pract 23:45–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maio G (2003) Research ethics and the principle of justice as fairness – a restatement. Theor Med Bioeth – Philos Med Res Pract 24:395–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick RA (1974) Proxy consent in the experimentation situation. Perspect Biol Med 18:2–20

    Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (ed) (1978) The belmont report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects in research. DHEW Publications No. (OS) 78-0012, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council on Bioethics in Human Research (NCBHR) (ed) (1992) Report on research involving children. Prepared by the consent panel task force of the national council of bioethics in human research (NCBHR) with the support of the Canadian paediatric society. NCBHR, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratzan RM (1980) Being old makes you different: the ethics of research with elderly subjects. Hastings Cent Rep 10:32–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1982) Social unity and primary goods. In: Sen A, Williams B (eds) Utilitarism and beyond. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 159–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1992) Der Vorrang der Grundfreiheiten. In: Hinsch W (ed) Die Idee des politischen Liberalismus. Aufsätze 1978–1989. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., pp 159–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1998) Eine Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M., 8 Auflage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taupitz J (ed) (2002) The convention on human rights an biomedicine of the council of Europe. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Veatch RM (1987) The patient as partner. A theory of human-experimentation ethics. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Zentrale Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer (1997) Stellungnahme “Zum Schutz nicht-einwilligungsfähiger Personen in der medizinischen Forschung”. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 94:B811–B812

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Bioethics and History of Medicine, University of Freiburg, D-79104, Freiburg, Germany

    Giovanni Maio

Authors
  1. Giovanni Maio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanni Maio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Klinik für Psychiatrie/ Psychotherapie, Universitätsklinikum Berlin, Eschenallee 3, Berlin, 14050, Germany

    Hanfried Helmchen

  2. chemin Colladon 14, Geneve, 1209, Switzerland

    Norman Sartorius

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maio, G. (2010). Ethics of Research with Decisionally Impaired Patients. In: Helmchen, H., Sartorius, N. (eds) Ethics in Psychiatry. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 45. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8721-8_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8721-8_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8720-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8721-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation