Applying bioethical principles to place-based communities and cultural group protections: the case of biomonitoring results communication.
In this article, an argument is made for extending bioethical principles to place-based community and cultural group protections when there are conflicting perspectives on reporting individual results of biomonitoring studies. Bioethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice can incorporate participatory decision-making and understandings of the group conditions of individual research participants, particularly for research studies with vulnerable groups. Arguments for and against biomonitoring communication to individual participants are reviewed here. Assessments of risks and benefits of biomonitoring communication can be improved by considering the contextual conditions of cultural groups and place-based communities. Providing participatory decision-making with all stakeholders about biomonitoring communication can provide more fair benefits than adopting a general, prescriptive clinical standard that favors only group report-backs when clinical utility is low and the scientific understandings of low dose exposures of chemical contaminants to humans are still uncertain.
Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Dianne
D
Quigley
D022126:Access to Information / Q000941:ethics*; D026686:Beneficence; D055812:Community-Based Participatory Research; D003254:Consumer Advocacy; D003657:Decision Making / Q000941:ethics; D033002:Duty to Recontact / Q000941:ethics*; D004784:Environmental Monitoring / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D028662:Principle-Based Ethics; D035844:Researcher-Subject Relations / Q000941:ethics*; D035862:Vulnerable Populations