Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam Medical Centre, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands.
J Med Ethics. 2017 Oct;43(10):657-663. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103955. Epub 2017 Jul 17.
Notwithstanding the need to produce evidence-based knowledge on medications for pregnant women, they remain underrepresented in clinical research. Sometimes they are excluded because of their supposed vulnerability, but there are no universally accepted criteria for considering pregnant women as vulnerable. Our aim was to explore and if so pregnant women are vulnerable as research subjects.
We performed a conceptual and empirical analysis of vulnerability applied to pregnant women.
A conceptual analysis supports Hurst's definition of vulnerability. Consequently, we argue that pregnant women are vulnerable if they encounter an identifiably increased likelihood of incurring additional or greater wrong. According to the literature, this increased likelihood could exist of four alleged features for pregnant women's vulnerability: (i) informed consent, (ii) susceptibility to coercion, (iii) higher exposure to risk due to lack of knowledge, (iv) vulnerability of the fetus.
Testing the features against Hurst's definition demonstrates that they all concern the same issue: pregnant women are only vulnerable because a higher exposure to risk due to lack of scientific knowledge comprises an increased wrong. Research Ethics Committees have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable, but a higher exposure to risk due to lack of scientific knowledge is a much broader issue and also needs to be addressed by other stakeholders.
The only reason why pregnant women are potentially vulnerable is to the extent that they are increasingly exposed to higher risks due to a lack of scientific knowledge. Accordingly, the discussion can advance to the development of practical strategies to promote fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research.
尽管需要产生针对孕妇药物的循证知识,但在临床研究中,孕妇的代表性仍然不足。有时她们被排除在外是因为她们被认为很脆弱,但并没有普遍接受的标准来将孕妇视为脆弱人群。我们的目的是探讨孕妇是否作为研究对象而处于脆弱状态。
我们对应用于孕妇的脆弱性进行了概念和实证分析。
概念分析支持赫斯特对脆弱性的定义。因此,我们认为,如果孕妇面临着明显增加遭受额外或更大伤害的可能性,那么她们就是脆弱的。根据文献,孕妇的脆弱性可能存在以下四个所谓的特征:(i)知情同意,(ii)易受胁迫,(iii)由于缺乏知识而更容易暴露于风险,(iv)胎儿脆弱。
根据赫斯特的定义对这些特征进行检验表明,它们都涉及同一个问题:孕妇之所以脆弱,仅仅是因为缺乏科学知识导致的更高风险暴露构成了更大的伤害。研究伦理委员会有责任保护脆弱人群,但由于缺乏科学知识而导致的更高风险暴露是一个更为广泛的问题,也需要其他利益相关者来解决。
孕妇之所以潜在地脆弱,仅仅是因为她们由于缺乏科学知识而面临更高的风险暴露。因此,讨论可以进一步推进制定公平纳入孕妇参与临床研究的实际策略。