Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThomson, Colin
dc.contributor.authorPieper, Ian James
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-25T19:40:52Z
dc.date.available2019-09-25T19:40:52Z
dc.date.created2014-05-06 19:48
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifieroai:eprints.qut.edu.au:71016
dc.identifierhttp://eprints.qut.edu.au/71016/
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/454122
dc.description.abstractOne of the core values to be applied by a body reviewing the ethics of human research is justice. The inclusion of justice as a requirement in the ethical review of human research is relatively recent and its utility had been largely unexamined until debates arose about the conduct of international biomedical research in the late 1990s. The subsequent amendment of authoritative documents in ways that appeared to shift the meaning of conceptions of justice generated a deal of controversy. Another difficulty has been that both the theory and the substance of justice that are applied by researchers or reviewers can be frequently seen to be subjective. Both the concept of justice – whether distributive or commutative - and what counts as a just distribution or exchange – are given different weight and meanings by different people. In this paper, the origins and more recent debates about the requirement to consider justice as a criterion in the ethical review of human research are traced, relevant conceptions of justice are distinguished and the manner in which they can be applied meaningfully in the ethical review all human research is identified. The way that these concepts are articulated in, and the intent and function of, specific paragraphs of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, ARC, UA, 2007) (National Statement) is explained. The National Statement identifies a number of issues that should be considered when a human research ethics committee is reviewing the justice aspects of an application. It also provides guidance to researchers as to how they can show that there is a fair distribution of burdens and benefits in the participant experience and the research outcomes. It also provides practical guidance to researchers on how to think through issues of justice so that they can demonstrate that the design of their research projects meets this ethical requirement is also provided
dc.format.mediumapplication/pdf
dc.publisherMonash University, Centre for Human Bioethics
dc.relation.ispartofhttp://journals.publishing.monash.edu/ojs/index.php/mber/article/view/1067/1393
dc.relation.ispartofhttp://eprints.qut.edu.au/71016/1/Justice_%2D_conceptual_%26_practical_guide_%2D_Accepted.pdf
dc.relation.ispartofPieper, Ian James & Thomson, Colin (2013) Justice in human research ethics : a conceptual and practical guide. Monash Bioethics Review, 31(1), pp. 99-116.
dc.rightsCopyright 2014 Monash University, Centre for Human Bioethics
dc.sourceFaculty of Law; Health Law Research Centre
dc.subjectJustice
dc.subject220100 APPLIED ETHICS
dc.subjectEthics
dc.subjectHuman Research Ethics Committee
dc.subjectHuman Research Ethics
dc.titleJustice in human research ethics : a conceptual and practical guide
dc.typeJournal Article
ge.collectioncodeEC
ge.collectioncodeED
ge.dataimportlabelOAI metadata object
ge.identifier.legacyglobethics:5756092
ge.identifier.permalinkhttps://www.globethics.net/gel/5756092
ge.lastmodificationdate2014-09-18 23:10
ge.submissions0
ge.oai.exportid53
ge.oai.repositoryid996
ge.oai.setnameStatus = Published
ge.oai.setnameePrint Type = Journal Article
ge.oai.setnameSubject = Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification: PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES (220000): APPLIED ETHICS (220100)
ge.oai.setspec7374617475733D707562
ge.oai.setspec74797065733D61727469636C65
ge.oai.setspec7375626A656374733D616E7A737263:323230303030:323230313030
ge.oai.streamid1
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib
ge.linkhttp://eprints.qut.edu.au/71016/


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record