AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print Sep 27, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2006.093658v1
97/11/1956    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Richardson, H. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Richardson, H. S.
©
American Journal of Public Health, 10.2105/AJPH.2006.093658


Health Policy and Ethics

Gradations of Researchers’ Obligation to Provide Ancillary Care for HIV/AIDS in Developing Countries

Henry S. Richardson 1*

1 Georgetown University

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: richardh{at}georgetown.edu.


   Abstract

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.

Key Words: Ethics, HIV/AIDS







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2007 by the American Public Health Association