Cargando…
Research Ethics and Intellectual Disability: Broadening the Debates
This article examines the ethical issues surrounding the inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities as research subjects. It explores subject selection, competence, risk and benefits, and authority through three tensions that emerge when considering these concepts in the context of the Disab...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
YJBM
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24058305 |
_version_ | 1782283632298164224 |
---|---|
author | Carlson, Licia |
author_facet | Carlson, Licia |
author_sort | Carlson, Licia |
collection | PubMed |
description | This article examines the ethical issues surrounding the inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities as research subjects. It explores subject selection, competence, risk and benefits, and authority through three tensions that emerge when considering these concepts in the context of the Disability Rights Movement and critical disability scholarship. These tensions are defined as the double dangers of inclusion and exclusion; the challenges of defining competence and risk in terms of individuals vs. groups; and the conflicts that arise when pursuing the dual goals of amelioration and elimination of disabilities. Though these tensions are not resolved, they underscore the importance of researchers engaging with critical disability perspectives in order to navigate these complex ethical questions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3767215 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | YJBM |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37672152013-09-20 Research Ethics and Intellectual Disability: Broadening the Debates Carlson, Licia Yale J Biol Med Focus: Research and Clinical Ethics This article examines the ethical issues surrounding the inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities as research subjects. It explores subject selection, competence, risk and benefits, and authority through three tensions that emerge when considering these concepts in the context of the Disability Rights Movement and critical disability scholarship. These tensions are defined as the double dangers of inclusion and exclusion; the challenges of defining competence and risk in terms of individuals vs. groups; and the conflicts that arise when pursuing the dual goals of amelioration and elimination of disabilities. Though these tensions are not resolved, they underscore the importance of researchers engaging with critical disability perspectives in order to navigate these complex ethical questions. YJBM 2013-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3767215/ /pubmed/24058305 Text en Copyright ©2013, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-NC license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Focus: Research and Clinical Ethics Carlson, Licia Research Ethics and Intellectual Disability: Broadening the Debates |
title | Research Ethics and Intellectual Disability: Broadening the
Debates |
title_full | Research Ethics and Intellectual Disability: Broadening the
Debates |
title_fullStr | Research Ethics and Intellectual Disability: Broadening the
Debates |
title_full_unstemmed | Research Ethics and Intellectual Disability: Broadening the
Debates |
title_short | Research Ethics and Intellectual Disability: Broadening the
Debates |
title_sort | research ethics and intellectual disability: broadening the
debates |
topic | Focus: Research and Clinical Ethics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767215/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24058305 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT carlsonlicia researchethicsandintellectualdisabilitybroadeningthedebates |