AMBIENTUM BIOETHICA BIOLOGIA CHEMIA DIGITALIA DRAMATICA EDUCATIO ARTIS GYMNAST. ENGINEERING EPHEMERIDES EUROPAEA GEOGRAPHIA GEOLOGIA HISTORIA HISTORIA ARTIUM INFORMATICA IURISPRUDENTIA MATHEMATICA MUSICA NEGOTIA OECONOMICA PHILOLOGIA PHILOSOPHIA PHYSICA POLITICA PSYCHOLOGIA-PAEDAGOGIA SOCIOLOGIA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA LATIN THEOLOGIA GR.-CATH. VARAD THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA THEOLOGIA REF. TRANSYLVAN
The STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI issue article summary
The summary of the selected article appears at the bottom of the page. In order to get back to the contents of the issue this article belongs to you have to access the link from the title. In order to see all the articles of the archive which have as author/co-author one of the authors mentioned below, you have to access the link from the author's name.
Authors: MARK SHEEHAN.
DOI: 10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.109
Published Online: 2021-06-30
Published Print: 2021-06-30
pp. 162
FULL PDF
ABSTRACT: Parallel Session IV, Room 4 In this paper, I engage with the on-going debate about the nature of the task that research ethics committees (RECs) have in coming to assess the ethics of research proposals. Some have argued that the role of RECs is to protect participants from harm in the context of researchers who want to benefit future people. Others have argued that the role of RECs is primarily to ensure that potential participants are provided with full information – enough to make an informed choice. On this later view, RECs protect choice rather than restrict it. I argue that both of these orientations are mistaken and that the role of RECs more akin to a societal overseer who ensures that the research is worthwhile and, most importantly, that it presents a fair offer to potential participants. On this view, the REC’s role is to balance potential harms to participants with the potential benefits of the research in the context of presenting the choice about whether to participate to potential participants.
