103
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      'Relief of oppression': An organizing principle for researchers' obligations to participants in observational studies in the developing world

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A central question in the debate about exploitation in international research is whether investigators and sponsors from high-income countries (HIC) have obligations to address background conditions of injustice in the communities in which they conduct their research, beyond the healthcare and other research-related needs of participants, to aspects of their basic life circumstances.

          Discussion

          In this paper, we describe the Majengo sexually transmitted disease (STD) Cohort study, a long-term prospective, observational cohort of sex workers in Nairobi, Kenya. Despite important scientific contributions and a wide range of benefits to the women of the cohort, most of the women have remained in the sex trade during their long-standing participation in the cohort, prompting allegations of exploitation. The Majengo STD cohort case extends the debate about justice in international research ethics beyond clinical trials into long-term observational research. We sketch the basic features of a new approach to understanding and operationalizing obligations of observational researchers, which we call 'relief of oppression'. 'Relief of oppression' is an organizing principle, analogous to the principle of harm reduction that is now widely applied in public health practice. Relief of oppression aims to help observational researchers working in conditions of injustice and deprivation to clarify their ethical obligations to participants. It aims to bridge the gap between a narrow, transaction-oriented account of avoiding exploitation and a broad account emphasizing obligations of reparation for historic injustices. We propose that relief of oppression might focus researchers' consideration of benefits on those that have some relevance to background conditions of injustice, and so elevate the priority of these benefits, in relation to others that might be considered and negotiated with participants, according to the degree to which the participating communities are constrained in their realization of fundamental freedoms.

          Summary

          The over-arching aim of relief of oppression is that, within the range of benefits negotiated over time with the local communities and organizations, an increasing proportion reflects a shared interest in improving participants' fundamental freedoms. We describe how harm reduction serves as a useful analogy for how we envision relief of oppression functioning in international research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Problem of Global Justice

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The ethics of clinical research in the Third World.

            M Angell (1997)
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in Africa: effectiveness of condom promotion and health education among prostitutes.

              Condom use was assessed after a programme of education about the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and a condom distribution programme in a well-characterised prostitute population in Nairobi. Women received their education at group meetings (barazas) and at individual counselling sessions during which they were given the results of serological tests for the human immunodeficiency virus (group 1) or at barazas only (group 2), or through very little of either (group 3). During the counselling sessions free condoms were distributed. Before either of the programmes started, 10%, 9%, and 7% of groups 1, 2, and 3 women, respectively, reported occasional use of condoms. By November 1986, 80%, 70%, and 58% of groups 1, 2, and 3 women, respectively, reported at least some condom use. The mean frequency of condom use was 38.7 (SD 31.8)%, 34.6 (34.5)%, and 25.6 (29.5)% of sexual encounters in groups 1, 2, and 3 women. 20 of 28 women who were non-condom-users seroconverted compared with 23 of 50 women who reported some use of condoms.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central
                1471-2458
                2010
                30 June 2010
                : 10
                : 384
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Research on Inner City Health & Centre for Global Health Research, Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Public Health Sciences and Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                [3 ]McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Microbiology, University of Nairobi
                [5 ]Joint Centre for Bioethics, Department of Family & Community Medicine, and Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                [6 ]Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
                [7 ]Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada
                [8 ]Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                Article
                1471-2458-10-384
                10.1186/1471-2458-10-384
                3091550
                20591194
                55011a48-89f8-4262-ac24-0adc46c0e25c
                Copyright ©2010 Lavery et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 January 2010
                : 30 June 2010
                Categories
                Debate

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log