MORE ON BENCHMARKS OF FAIRNESS: RESPONSE TO BALLANTYNE

This paper challenges the fitness of Angela Ballantyne's proposed theory of exploitation by situating her ‘fair risk account’ in an ongoing dialogue about the adequacy conditions for benchmarks of fairness. It identifies four adequacy conditions: (1) the ability to focus on level rather than ty...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Phillips, Trisha (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Gargar...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell 2012
En: Bioethics
Año: 2012, Volumen: 26, Número: 1, Páginas: 49-56
Otras palabras clave:B Social Justice
B international research
B Risk assessment
B benefit assesment
B research ethics
B Justicia
B Exploitation
Acceso en línea: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Descripción
Sumario:This paper challenges the fitness of Angela Ballantyne's proposed theory of exploitation by situating her ‘fair risk account’ in an ongoing dialogue about the adequacy conditions for benchmarks of fairness. It identifies four adequacy conditions: (1) the ability to focus on level rather than type of benefit; (2) the ability to focus on micro-level rather than macro-level fairness; (3) the ability to prevent discrimination based on need; and (4) the ability to prescribe a certain distribution as superior to all others. While the fair risk account satisfies the first condition, this paper argues that it has difficulty satisfying the last three conditions. Ballantyne's proposal includes several new and promising features, but in order for the fair risk account to be useful in identifying and preventing exploitation, Ballantyne must either clarify and augment her theory or challenge the relevance of the adequacy conditions it fails to meet.
ISSN:1467-8519
Obras secundarias:Enthalten in: Bioethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01822.x