Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Disaster Bioethics: Normative Issues When Nothing is Normal pp 109–127Cite as

Interests Divided: Risks to Disaster Research Subjects vs. Benefits to Future Disaster Victims

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Public Health Ethics Analysis ((PHES,volume 2))

Abstract

The increase in number of severe disasters worldwide, together with the professionalization of first responders, rescue teams and humanitarian organisations, has led to the emergence of a new kind of research, ‘disaster research.’ There are presently no research rules or codes of ethics that take into account the status of disaster victims as a vulnerable population, and the need to articulate an ethical justification for conducting disaster research has gathered momentum.

This chapter explores the key ethical requirements for conducting research on victims of disasters (including voluntary informed consent, and a favourable benefit-harm ratio), examines whether these requirements can be realised and are sufficient to justify research in disaster settings, and concludes with recommendations for defining the fundamental ethical duty of all humanitarian responders in the immediate response phase of a disaster.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. 1995. US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Advisory Group on Research in Emergencies. 1997. Annex—Ethics Template. http://apps.who.int/eha/resource/pubs/160499p.htm. Accessed 11 May 2011.

  • Annas, George J. 2010. Worst case bioethics. Death, disaster, and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzilay, Ezra, Nicolas Schaad, Roc Magoire, Kam S. Mung, Jacques Boncy, Georges A. Dahourou, Eric D. Mintz, Maria W. Steenland, John F. Vertefeuille, and Jordan W. Tappero. 2013. Cholera surveillance during Haiti epidemic—The first 2 years. New England Journal of Medicine 368:599–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohannon, Jean. 2011. War as a laboratory for trauma research. Science 331:1261–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boylan, John F, Niamh P. Conton, Mohammad J. Jaigirdar. 2011. Consent in emergency care research. The Lancet 378:25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1976. 45 CFR 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 2009. 45 CFR 46.102 (D).

    Google Scholar 

  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Science (CIOMS). 2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2013.

  • Council of Europe. 2005. Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/195.htm. Accessed 7 June 2012.

  • Emanuel, Ezekiel J., and Jerry Menikoff. 2011. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. New England Journal of Medicine 365:1145–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel, Ezekiel J., David Wendler, and Christine Grady. 2000. What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association 283 (20): 2701–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Mirian, and Mark Wilson. 2011. Consent in emergency care research. The Lancet 378:26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, Paul. 2005. Pathologies of power: Health, human rights, and the new war on the poor, 205. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, F. Scott. 1925. The Great Gatsby. New York: Charles Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, Sheri. 2009. The deadly choices at Memorial. New York Times, 25 Aug.

    Google Scholar 

  • Food, and Drug Administration (FDA). 1996. Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research. 21CFR 50.24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. 2011. Commentary: Systems, rules and the costs of being ethical—A response to D. Chalmers and to S. Whitney and C. Schneider. Journal of Internal Medicine 269:403–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornblum, Allen M. 1998. Acres of skin: Human experiments at Holmesburg prison. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2006. Ethical considerations for research involving prisoners. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, Hans. 1969. Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. Daedalus 98 (2): 219–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Jeffrey. 2003. It’s a small world after all: Ethics and the response to SARS. Hastings Center Report 33 (3): 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Jay. 1993. Ethics and clinical research revisited: A tribute to Henry K. Beecher. Hastings Center Report 23 (5): 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Largent, Emily A., Steven Joffe, Franklin G. Miller. 2011. Can research and care be ethically integrated? Hastings Center Report 41 (4): 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaning, Jennifer. 2001. Ethics of research in refugee populations. The Lancet 357:1432–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maschke, Karen J. 2008. Human research protections: Time for regulatory reform? Hastings Center Report 38 (2): 19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Médecins, Sans Frontières (MSF). 2010. Operational research: Definition, purposes and procedures (A policy framework). http://fieldresearch.msf.org/msf/bitstream/10144/190889/1/OR%20Policy%202010.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2013

  • Miller, Franklin, and Ezekiel Emanuel. 2008. Quality improvement research and informed consent. New England Journal of Medicine 358:765–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral research. 1976. Report and recommendations: Research involving prisoners. Bethesda. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuremberg, Code. 1949. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html. Accessed 5 June 2013.

  • Obasogie, Osagie K. 2010. Prisoners as human subjects: A closer look at the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations to loosen current restrictions on using prisoners in scientific research. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 6 (1): 41–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Physician for Human Rights. 2009. Nowhere to turn: Failure to protect, support and assure justice for Darfuri women. https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/nowhere-to-turn.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2013.

  • Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 2013. Safeguarding children. Pediatric medical countermeasure research. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, Holly. 2002. Research ethics in complex humanitarian emergencies. Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10481.html Accessed 18 June 2013.

  • Rid, Annette, and David Wendler. 2011. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (2): 141–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Ian, David Pietro-Merino, Haleema Shakur, Iain Chalmers, and Jon Nicholl. 2011. Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. The Lancet 377:1071–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, David J. 1987. Ethics and human experimentation: Henry Beecher revisited. New England Journal of Medicine 317:1195–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, Adil E., and David B. Resnik. 2003. Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuster, Evelyne. 1997. Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine 337:1436–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuster, Evelyne. 1998. The Nuremberg Code: Hippocratic ethics and human rights. The Lancet 351:974–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solbakk, Jan 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 20:341–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabuchi, Hiroko. 2012. An anniversary of ‘heartbreaking grief’ in Japan. New York Times, 11 March. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/a-year-later-effects-of-japans-disaster-are-still-unfolding.html. Accessed 24 June 2013.

  • Wendler, David. 2005. Protecting subjects who cannot give consent: Toward a better standard for “minimal” risks. Hastings Center Report 35 (5): 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, Simon N., and Carl E. Schneider. 2011. Viewpoint: A method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research. Journal of Internal Medicine 269:396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). 1995. Guidelines for good clinical practice (GCP) for trials on pharmaceutical products. http://apps.who.int/prequal/info_general/documents/TRS850/WHO_TRS_850-Annex3.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). 1997. Report of consultation on applied health research priorities in complex emergencies. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Applied health research in emergency settings. Document: 12983. http://cidbimena.desastres.hn/docum/crid/Enero2006/CD-2/pdf/eng/doc12983/doc12983.htm. Accessed 11 June 2013.

  • World Health Organization (WHO). 2002. Handbook for good clinical research practice (GCP). http://apps.who.int/prequal/info_general/documents/GCP/gcp1.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2013.

  • World Medical Association (WMA). 2008. Declaration of Helsinki—ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects 1964.Accessed 5 June 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Sarah. 2013. Haiyan prompts risk research. Nature 503:324.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, USA

    Evelyne Shuster

Authors
  1. Evelyne Shuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evelyne Shuster .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dublin City University, Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Dónal P. O’Mathúna

  2. Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Bert Gordijn

  3. Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Ireland

    Mike Clarke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shuster, E. (2014). Interests Divided: Risks to Disaster Research Subjects vs. Benefits to Future Disaster Victims. In: O’Mathúna, D., Gordijn, B., Clarke, M. (eds) Disaster Bioethics: Normative Issues When Nothing is Normal. Public Health Ethics Analysis, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3864-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation