Back to Search
Start Over
Why high-risk, non-expected-utility-maximising gambles can be rational and beneficial: the case of HIV cure studies.
- Source :
- Journal of Medical Ethics; Feb2017, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p90-95, 6p
- Publication Year :
- 2017
-
Abstract
- Some early phase clinical studies of candidate HIV cure and remission interventions appear to have adverse medical risk-benefit ratios for participants. Why, then, do people participate? And is it ethically permissible to allow them to participate? Recent work in decision theory sheds light on both of these questions, by casting doubt on the idea that rational individuals prefer choices that maximise expected utility, and therefore by casting doubt on the idea that researchers have an ethical obligation not to enrol participants in studies with high risk-benefit ratios. This work supports the view that researchers should instead defer to the considered preferences of the participants themselves. This essay briefly explains this recent work, and then explores its application to these two questions in more detail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Subjects :
- HIV infections
THERAPEUTICS
HEALTH risk assessment
PROBABILITY theory
HEALTH status indicators
PUBLIC health
HIV prevention
MEDICAL research ethics
ATTITUDE (Psychology)
DECISION making
ETHICS
MEDICAL ethics
MEDICAL personnel
PROFESSIONAL ethics
RESEARCH funding
RISK assessment
SOCIAL responsibility
RESEARCH personnel
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 03066800
- Volume :
- 43
- Issue :
- 2
- Database :
- Complementary Index
- Journal :
- Journal of Medical Ethics
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 120970755
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103118