界定生物医学研究中的可赔偿损害。

Megan E Larkin
{"title":"界定生物医学研究中的可赔偿损害。","authors":"Megan E Larkin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Biomedical research provides a core social good by enabling medical progress. In the twenty-first century alone, this includes\nreducing transmission of HIV/AIDS, developing innovative therapies for cancer patients, and exploring the possibilities of personalized\nmedicine. In order to continue to advance medical science, research relies on the voluntary participation of human subjects. Because\nresearch is inherently uncertain, unintended harm is an inevitable part of the research enterprise. Currently, injured research\nparticipants in the United States must turn to the “litigation lottery” of the tort system in search of compensation. This state of affairs fails\nresearch participants, who are too often left uncompensated for devastating losses, and makes the United States an outlier in the\ninternational community. In spite of forty years’ worth of Presidential Commissions and other respected voices calling for the development of\na no-fault compensation system, no progress has been made to date. One of the reasons for this lack of progress is the failure to develop a\ncoherent ethical basis for an obligation to provide compensation for research related injuries. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of a\nclear definition of “compensable injury” in the biomedical research context. This article makes a number of important contributions to the\nscholarship in this growing field. To begin, it examines compensation systems already in existence and concludes that there are four main\ndefinitional elements that must be used to define “compensable injury.” Next, it examines the justifications that have been put forth\nas the basis for an ethical obligation to provide compensation, and settles on retrospective nonmaleficence and distributive and\ncompensatory justice as the most salient and persuasive. Finally, it uses the regulatory elements and the justifications discussed in the\nfirst two sections to develop a well-rounded definition of “compensable injury” that is tailored to the biomedical research\ncontext. Using this definition, it argues for the development of a first-of- its-kind no-fault compensation system in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":73212,"journal":{"name":"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)","volume":"25 ","pages":"309-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Defining Compensable Injury in Biomedical Research.\",\"authors\":\"Megan E Larkin\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Biomedical research provides a core social good by enabling medical progress. In the twenty-first century alone, this includes\\nreducing transmission of HIV/AIDS, developing innovative therapies for cancer patients, and exploring the possibilities of personalized\\nmedicine. In order to continue to advance medical science, research relies on the voluntary participation of human subjects. Because\\nresearch is inherently uncertain, unintended harm is an inevitable part of the research enterprise. Currently, injured research\\nparticipants in the United States must turn to the “litigation lottery” of the tort system in search of compensation. This state of affairs fails\\nresearch participants, who are too often left uncompensated for devastating losses, and makes the United States an outlier in the\\ninternational community. In spite of forty years’ worth of Presidential Commissions and other respected voices calling for the development of\\na no-fault compensation system, no progress has been made to date. One of the reasons for this lack of progress is the failure to develop a\\ncoherent ethical basis for an obligation to provide compensation for research related injuries. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of a\\nclear definition of “compensable injury” in the biomedical research context. This article makes a number of important contributions to the\\nscholarship in this growing field. To begin, it examines compensation systems already in existence and concludes that there are four main\\ndefinitional elements that must be used to define “compensable injury.” Next, it examines the justifications that have been put forth\\nas the basis for an ethical obligation to provide compensation, and settles on retrospective nonmaleficence and distributive and\\ncompensatory justice as the most salient and persuasive. Finally, it uses the regulatory elements and the justifications discussed in the\\nfirst two sections to develop a well-rounded definition of “compensable injury” that is tailored to the biomedical research\\ncontext. Using this definition, it argues for the development of a first-of- its-kind no-fault compensation system in the United States.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"309-82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物医学研究通过促进医学进步提供了一项核心社会公益。仅在21世纪,这就包括减少艾滋病毒/艾滋病的传播,为癌症患者开发创新疗法,探索个性化医疗的可能性。为了继续推进医学科学,研究依赖于人类受试者的自愿参与。因为用户研究本质上是不确定的,意外伤害是研究事业不可避免的一部分。目前,在美国,受害的研究参与者必须转向侵权制度的“诉讼彩票”来寻求赔偿。这种情况使研究参与者失望,他们经常得不到毁灭性损失的补偿,并使美国成为国际社会的局外人。尽管40年来总统委员会和其他受人尊敬的声音呼吁建立无过错赔偿制度,但迄今为止没有取得任何进展。这种缺乏进展的原因之一是未能为为研究相关伤害提供赔偿的义务制定一致的伦理基础。由于在生物医学研究中缺乏对“可赔偿伤害”的明确定义,这一问题更加严重。这篇文章对这个不断发展的领域的学术研究做出了许多重要贡献。首先,它审查了现有的赔偿制度,并得出结论,必须使用四个主要定义要素来定义“可赔偿的伤害”。其次,本文考察了作为提供赔偿的道德义务的基础而提出的理由,并确定溯及性无恶意以及分配和赔偿正义是最突出和最有说服力的。最后,本文利用前两节中讨论的监管要素和理由,为生物医学研究背景量身定制了一个全面的“可赔偿伤害”定义。根据这一定义,本文主张在美国建立一种史无前例的无过错赔偿制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Defining Compensable Injury in Biomedical Research.

Biomedical research provides a core social good by enabling medical progress. In the twenty-first century alone, this includes reducing transmission of HIV/AIDS, developing innovative therapies for cancer patients, and exploring the possibilities of personalized medicine. In order to continue to advance medical science, research relies on the voluntary participation of human subjects. Because research is inherently uncertain, unintended harm is an inevitable part of the research enterprise. Currently, injured research participants in the United States must turn to the “litigation lottery” of the tort system in search of compensation. This state of affairs fails research participants, who are too often left uncompensated for devastating losses, and makes the United States an outlier in the international community. In spite of forty years’ worth of Presidential Commissions and other respected voices calling for the development of a no-fault compensation system, no progress has been made to date. One of the reasons for this lack of progress is the failure to develop a coherent ethical basis for an obligation to provide compensation for research related injuries. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of a clear definition of “compensable injury” in the biomedical research context. This article makes a number of important contributions to the scholarship in this growing field. To begin, it examines compensation systems already in existence and concludes that there are four main definitional elements that must be used to define “compensable injury.” Next, it examines the justifications that have been put forth as the basis for an ethical obligation to provide compensation, and settles on retrospective nonmaleficence and distributive and compensatory justice as the most salient and persuasive. Finally, it uses the regulatory elements and the justifications discussed in the first two sections to develop a well-rounded definition of “compensable injury” that is tailored to the biomedical research context. Using this definition, it argues for the development of a first-of- its-kind no-fault compensation system in the United States.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信