A Combined Approach to Vulnerability for Research Ethics

Abstract

There is a problem associated with the concept of vulnerability for research ethics. This problem is that we must identify populations in need of additional protections while also delineating these protections. Some have argued that the concept is too nebulous to warrant use since an increasing number of individuals may be deemed vulnerable such that virtually everyone is vulnerable in some way. In opposition to this, many have argued that that the concept of vulnerability needs to be more specific. In this thesis, I evaluate the concept of vulnerability in a number of ways. I touch on rejections of the concept, the history of the concept though both research guidelines and research ethics and seek to explore a way forward to a more useable account of vulnerability. I argue that no current account of vulnerability is adequality able to address the challenging questions posed by research trials involving human participants. A persuasive account of vulnerability should (1) have a plausible/persuasive definition of vulnerability; (2) figure out what the application of a theory of vulnerability looks like; and (3) what obligations or duties are owed to the vulnerable (and who is responsible for fulfilling these duties). In order to address this, I propose the Combined approach to vulnerability. This approach defines vulnerability as an increased likelihood to incur additional or greater wrongs. The Combined approach functions like a taxonomy and categorizes vulnerability into three groups with the use of layers and restricts the application of these layers with its formal the definition of vulnerability. This thesis marks a new novel contribution to the field of research ethics, in the way of a new theory to vulnerability that emerges from the current literature and makes progress towards a more useful concept of duties and obligations owed to the vulnerable grounded communal engagement.