Belmont Report: Ethical Principles in Contemporary Research Practice

Running head: ESSAY
Belmont Report
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ESSAY
Introduction
Research ethics typically regulate the standards that are associated with the
conduction of investigation and it is utmost necessary for showing adherence to different
ethical principles, with the aim of defending the wellbeing, rights, and dignity of the research
participant (Walliman, 2017). The Belmont Report has been identified as one of the most
significant works, in relation to healthcare research and ethics. The primary objective of the
report was to protect the study participants and research subjects in different investigation
and clinical trials. The Belmont Report had been created by the National Commission for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research on 30 September
1978, followed by its publication on 18 April 1979, in the Federal Register (Friesen, Kearns,
Redman &Caplan, 2017). This essay will discuss how the ethical principles addressed in the
report apply to the contemporary research practice.
Discussion
The Belmont Report contains a synopsis of different ethical guidelines and principles
that are related to investigations that involve human subjects. Three major principles that are
accurately addressed in the report are namely, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence.
Furthermore, the report also highlights different areas of ethical application such as, informed
consent, an evaluation of the benefits and peril, and study subject assortment. According to
researchers, the Belmont Report creates the provision for a positive solution, which is
generallyproblematic to discover, to future research participants who are not proficientfor
making independent decisions (Nicolaides, 2016). The Common Rule had been formulated in
1981 in the United States, in relation to behavioral and biomedical research that encompass
human research participants. The Common Rule is under the control of the Institutional
Review Boards for oversight of human research and was made in accordance to the 1975
revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (ORHP, 2016). Moreover, the Common Rule had been

2ESSAY
encapsulated in the revision made during 1991, to different subparts of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services Title 45 CFR 46 (Public Welfare) (Taylor, Ehrhardt& Ervin,
2019). Hence, it can be stated that the Common Rule acts in the form of areference point of
ethics that controls different government-funded investigationthat are conducted in the US.
However, the Common Rule has been revised in recent years and the changes are meant to
decrease the burden on the researchers, besides improving safety of human research subjects.
Respect for people is the first standard in the Belmont Report and it states that all
individuals deserve the privilege to completely exercise their autonomy. This has been
identified as one of the core values of the Belmont Report and it can be stated that the report
recognizes the importance of identifying the right of research subjects for autonomy, and also
emphasizes on the need of protecting the people who have been identified as disadvantaged
population, to such an extent that they are not competent to implement their rights (Adashi,
Walters &Menikoff, 2018). This principle of autonomy holds relevance to current research on
cancer and other terminal diseases since it demands that capability of knowledgeable subjects
to take decisions be acknowledged and appreciated, while also guarding the autonomy of the
weak by averting the burden of unsolicited decisions (Martinez, Kurian, Hawley &Jagsi,
2015).In contemporary research, an autonomous individual is generally defined as a research
participant who holds the capability of self-legislation, and informed consent forms a core
component of this principle (Denzin&Giardina, 2016). It has often been found that failure to
attain informed consent, prior to conduction of investigation, or application of an intervention
often leads to medical malpractice. The Common Rule has also made changes regarding
informed approval, and states that all new investigation must adhere to permission templates
for addressing if the participants have de-identified data (ORHP, 2016). According to this
rule, informed consent must commence with a focused and concise presentation of vital
evidence that would facilitate the subjects to decide about their participation in research