HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2006.093658v1 97/11/1956    most recent Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Richardson, H. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Richardson, H. S. Related Collections Ethics HIV/AIDS

Henry S. Richardson, JD, PhD, MPP

Henry S. Richardson is with the Department of Philosophy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and at the time of writing, was with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Henry S. Richardson, Department of Philosophy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057 (e-mail: richardh{at}georgetown.edu).

Three principal factors affect the stringency of medical researchers’ obligation to provide antiretroviral treatment to participants in non-HIV/AIDS studies that are conducted in developing countries: (1) the centrality of HIV/AIDS to the study design, (2) the extent of the researcher–participant interaction, and (3) the cost relative to the study budget.

I provide a basis for assessing the comparative stringency of the researchers’ obligation to provide this type of ancillary care. Practically, given the range of possible responses to study participants’ needs, calibrating the researcher’s responsibility to provide ancillary care is a useful step in ethical analysis.

Theoretically, a gradation of obligation suggests how research ethics committees or institutional review boards can take multiple, potentially conflicting ethical factors into account without undertaking spurious efforts to quantify their importance.