Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T10:02:11.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vulnerability in Research: Individuals with Limited Financial and/or Social Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Christine Grady
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Vulnerability in research is often understood as a diminished ability to protect one's own interests, manifested by a compromised capacity to give informed or voluntary consent. Certain groups of people are thought to be more vulnerable than others and therefore are at risk of being exploited or mistreated in research. Accordingly, the federal regulations call for additional safeguards to protect vulnerable groups.

There remains some ambiguity and contradiction, however, regarding what groups are vulnerable in research and why,3 since the available codes of research ethics and regulations describe many groups as vulnerable. When so many groups are considered vulnerable, but no specification is offered as to how they are vulnerable or what particular protections are appropriate, the possibility of meaningful safeguards is diminished. In addition, current concepts of vulnerability are usually applied to whole groups of people, without distinguishing between individuals in a group who might truly have a compromised capacity to protect their own interests from those who do not.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , Spring 2009 , pp. 19 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and the World Health Organization (WHO), International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving Human Subjects, Geneva, 2002; Kipnis, K., “Vulnerability in Research Subjects: A Bioethical Taxonomy in National Bioethics Advisory Commission,” Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, Vol. II, National Bioethics Advisory Committee, Bethesda, 2001.Google Scholar
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects of Research.Google Scholar
Levine, C. Faden, R. Grady, C. Hammerschmidt, D. Eckenwiler, L. Sugarman, J., Consortium to Examine Clinical Research Ethics, “The Limitations of ‘Vulnerability’ as a Protection for Human Research Participants,” American Journal of Bioethics 4, no. 3 (2004): 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, C., “Research Involving Economically Disadvantaged Participants,” in Emanuel, E. Grady, C. Crouch, R. Lie, R. Miller, F. Wendler, D., eds., The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): Chapter 40, at 431–436.Google Scholar
DeBruin, D., “Reflections on ‘Vulnerability,’” Bioethics Examiner 5, no. 2 (2001): 1–4.Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979).Google Scholar
World Medical Association, Inc., Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, 2000, available at <http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm> (last visited November 24, 2008).+(last+visited+November+24,+2008).>Google Scholar
See CIOMS, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Stone, T. H., “The Invisible Vulnerable: The Economically and Educationally Disadvantaged Subjects of Clinical Research,” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 31, no. 1 (2003): 148–153; Noah, B. A., “The Participation of Underrepresented Minorities in Clinical Research,” American Journal of Law and Medicine 29, nos. 2–3 (2003): 221–245.Google Scholar
See National Commission, supra note 6.Google Scholar
Zion, D. Gillam, L. Loff, B., “The Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the Ethics of Research on Vulnerable Populations,” Nature Medicine 6, no. 6 (2006): 615–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pace, C. Miller, F. Danis, M., “Enrolling the Uninsured in Clinical Trials: An Ethical Perspective,” Critical Care Medicine 31, no. 3, Supplement (2003): S121–S125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Stone, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
See Levine, , supra note 4, at 433.Google Scholar
Gross, C. Filardo, G. Mayne, S. Krumholz, H., “The Impact of Socioeconomic Status and Race on Trial Participation for Older Women with Breast Cancer,” Cancer 103, no. 3 (2005): 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavers, V. L. Lynch, C. F. Burmeister, L. F., “Factors that Influence African Americans' Willingness to Participate in Medical Research Studies,” Cancer 91, no. S1 (2001): 233–236; El-Sadr, W. Capps, L., “The Challenge of Minority Recruitment in Clinical Trials for AIDS,” JAMA 267, no. 7 (1992): 954–957.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendler, D. Kington, R. Madans, J. VanWye, G. Christ-Schmidt, H. Pratt, L. Brawley, O. Gross, C. Emanuel, E., “Are Racial and Ethnic Minorities Less Willing to Participate in Health Research?” PLOS Medicine 3, no. 2 (2006): 0201–0210.Google Scholar
Adams-Campbell, L. Ahaghotu, C. Gaskins, M. Dawkins, F. Smoot, D. Polk, O. Gooding, R. DeWitty, R., “Enrollment of African Americans onto Clinical Treatment Trials: Study Design Barriers,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 22, no. 4 (2004): 730–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover the Uninsured, “Facts and Research: Fact Cheets,” available at <http://covertheuninsured.org/factsheets> (last visited November 25, 2008).+(last+visited+November+25,+2008).>Google Scholar
Denny, C. Grady, C., “Clinical Research with Economically Disadvantaged Populations,” Journal of Medical Ethics 33, no. 7 (2007): 382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Physicians, “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians,” Annals of Internal Medicine 141, no. 3 (2004): 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, H. W. Nishimi, R. M. Page-Lopez, C. M. Kizer, K. W., Improving Patient Safety through Informed Consent for Patients with Limited Health Literacy, National Quality Form, Washington, D.C., 2005.Google Scholar
Jefford, M. Moore, R., “Improvement of Informed Consent and the Quality of Consent Documents,” The Lancet Oncology 9, no. 5 (2008): 485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emanuel, E. Wendler, D. Grady, C., “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?” JAMA 283, no. 20 (2000): 2701–2711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joffe, S. Cook, E. Cleary, P. Clark, J. Weeks, J., “Quality of Informed Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Cross-Sectional Survey,” The Lancet 358, no. 9295 (2001):1772–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, C. Pace, C. Campbell, B. Emanuel, E., “The Quality of Informed Consent for Clinical Research: A Comparative Review of Empirical Data from Developing and Developed Countries” (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Flory, J. Emanuel, E., “Interventions to Improve Research Participant Understanding in Informed Consent Research,” Journal of the American Medical Association 292, no. 13 (2004): 1593–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J., “Histories of Mistrust and Protectionism: Disadvantaged Minority Groups and Human Subject Research Policies,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emanuel, E., “Undue Inducement: Nonsense on Stilts?” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 5 (2005): 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See CIOMS, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Seidenfeld, J. Horstmann, E. Emanuel, E. Grady, C., “Participants in Phase 1 Oncology Research: Are They Vulnerable?” Archives of Internal Medicine 168, no. 1 (2008): 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leffers, J. Martins, D. McGrath, M. Brown, D. G. Mercer, J. Sullivan, M. C. Viau, P., “Development of a Theoretical Construct for Risk and Vulnerability from Six Empirical Studies,” Research and Theory for Nursing Practice: An International Journal 18, no. 1 (2004): 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Faden, R. Beauchamp, T., “Coercion, Manipulation, and Persuasion,” in A History and Theory of Informed Consent (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986): Chapter 10, at 337–381.Google Scholar
Macklin, R. “Bioethics, Vulnerability, and Protection,” Bioethics 17, nos. 5–6 (2003): 472–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantian maxim as described in Wertheimer, A., Exploitation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996): at 23–24.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, A., “Exploitation in Clinical Research,” in Emanuel, E. Grady, C. Crouch, R. Lie, R. Miller, F. Wendler, D., eds., The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008): At 201–210.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, A, Exploitation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
IdGoogle Scholar
Dickert, N. Grady, C., “What's the Price of a Research Subject? Approaches to Payment for Research Participation,” New England Journal of Medicine 341, no. 3 (1999): 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grady, C. Dickert, N. Jawetz, T. Gensler, G. Emanuel, E., “An Analysis of U.S. Practices of Paying Research Participants,” Contemporary Clinical Trials 26, no. 3 (2005): 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Wertheimer, , supra note 38.Google Scholar
See Wertheimer, , supra note 37.Google Scholar
See American College of Physicians, supra note 21.Google Scholar
See Stone, , supra note 9.Google Scholar
See U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Levine, , supra note 4, at 435.Google Scholar