The Belmont Report doesn’t need reform, our moral imagination does

Datos Bibliográficos

ID21787627
AutoresKimberley Serpico (0000-0002-0755-2233, Center for Practical Bioethics, autor de correspondencia)
Año2024
Volumen20
Número3
Páginas559-573
Fecha de publicación2024-07-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaResearch Ethics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1747-0161 • E-ISSN: 2047-6094
EditorialSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/17470161241235772
OpenAlexW4392373622
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas2
Referencias citadas29

In 1974, the United States Congress asked a question prompting a national conversation about ethics: which ethical principles should govern research involving human participants? To embark on an answer, Congress passed the National Research Act, and charged this task to the newly established National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Commission’s mandate was modest however, the results were anything but. The outcome was The Belmont Report: a trio of principles - respect for persons, beneficence, and justice - serving as an ethical compass for scientists, researchers, and institutional review boards (IRBs). Almost 50 years later, the utility, legacy, and ingenuity of The Belmont Report continues to be both admired and challenged. Critics argue that Belmont is not fit for the 21st century, while supporters praise Belmont for its enduring wisdom. The goal of this paper is to equip IRB practitioners with the tools necessary to maximally interpret The Belmont Report and meaningfully engage in ethical analysis that reconsiders outmoded legacy thinking and fixed decision-making. Through historical and contextual reflection, this paper describes how IRB practitioners can contemporize review of ethical human research using their moral imagination – a skill found at the intersection of creativity, deliberation, and empathy

Political science · Psychoanalysis · Sociology · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Healthcare Quality and Management · Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare · Psychology · Social Psychology