|
|
|
|
An on-line interactive case study developed by by the Case Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. For program participants only. Is informed consent culturally bound or is it a universal principle that cannot be compromised? What percent of HIV+ children would have to benefit from a treatment (and to what degree) for it to be considered effective? Are there situations when confidentiality could/should be ignored? What, if any, are those particular circumstances? How can funding issues impact the dissemination of research findings? Can you imagine a scenario in which this conflicts with a researcher's responsibility to his or her study community? At what level of efficacy should a vaccine be considered as a useful preventative measure? Who should make this determination? Are those who oppose the approval of traditional medicines biased against them, denigrating indigenous science, and trying to impose their own "Western biases" on scientific research? What, if any, are the rights of a husband or father in deciding whether an an HIV+ mother can breastfeed her child? Does the process of identifying individuals who have had an abortion violate confidentiality? Can oral consent substitute for written consent in a population that has high rates of illiteracy? Are race and ethnicity risk factors for disease? If so, how? Would it be unethical to offer state-of-the-art care to seroconvertors in a vaccine study if this level of care is not available in their country? What are the consent issues in a study on vaginal microbicides? Note: Cases are fictional, but based on real events. All organization and individual names have been changed. |