Филантропическая модель распространения научных знаний: историко-этический анализ (1982–2024 гг.)

Введение. Принцип благотворительности – один из фундаментальных столпов биоэтики, обеспечивающий защиту достоинства участников в ходе научных исследований. Цель исследования – проанализировать пул научных работ, связанных с принципом благотворительности в распространении научных знаний, и выявить ключевые научные издания, авторов, публикации, термины и общие характеристики подобных работ. Методология, методы и методики. Проведен библиометрический анализ статей, проиндексированных в базе данных Scopus, в соответствии с рекомендациями PRISMA. Был проанализирован 581 документ с использованием интерфейса Biblioshiny. Результаты и научная новизна. Результаты исследования демонстрируют рост числа публикаций, связывающих принцип благотворительности с медицинской этикой, автономией, информированным согласием, распределительной справедливостью и паллиативной помощью. Наиболее значимыми журналами стали Journal of Medical Ethics, AMA Journal of Ethics и Nursing Ethics, все они входят в первый квартиль Scopus. Самым цитируемым документом (420 цитирований) оказалась статья «Beyond „Do No Harm“: The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee Research». Тематическая эволюция показала интеграцию принципа благотворительности с вопросами научного образования и биоэтической подготовки. Практическая значимость. Результаты подчеркивают важность укрепления научного и биоэтического образования, что может быть полезно для профессиональной деятельности и подготовки будущих исследователей.

1. Chinn C.A., Malhotra B.A. Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a gtheoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education. 2002;86(2):175–218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001

2. Squire K.D., Jan M. Mad city mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2007;16(1):5–29. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z

3. Weil C., Larraín M., Galaz C., Solís K., Concha L. Scientific education as a support of social mobility.Estudios Pedagógicos. 2009;35(1):63–78. doi:10.4067/S0718-07052009000100004

4. Driver R., Asoko H., Leach J., Scott P., Mortimer E. Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher. 1994;23(7):5–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007005

5. Hodson D. Time for action: science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education. 2003;25(6):645–670. doi:10.1080/09500690305021

6. Berland L., McNeill K. A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education. 2010;94(5):765–793. doi:10.1002/sce.20402

7. Mackenzie C., McDowell C., Pittaway E. Beyond “Do No Harm”: the challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies. 2007;20(2):299–319. doi:10.1093/jrs/fem008

8. Ravitsky V., Wilfond B. Disclosing individual genetic results to research participants. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2007;6(6):8–17. doi:10.1080/15265160600934772

9. Thomasma D. Beyond medical paternalism and patient autonomy: a model of physician conscience for the physician-patient relationship. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1983;98(2):243–248. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-98-2-243

10. Sacristan J.A., Aguaron A., Avendaño C., Garrido P., Carrion J., Gutierrez A., et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2016;10:631–640.doi:10.2147/PPA.S104259

11. Miller R. Globalizing justice: the ethics of poverty and power. Oxford Academic. 2010. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199581986.001.0001

12. Jones G., Whitaker M. Anatomy’s use of unclaimed bodies: reasons against continued dependence on an ethically dubious practice. Clinical Anatomy. 2012;25(2):246–254. doi:10.1002/ca.21223

13. Alcântara F. Perception of physiotherapists on bioethical aspects in palliative care. Revista Bioética. 2021;29(1):107–114. doi:10.1590/1983-80422021291451

14. Jones K.A., Semple M. Ethics in clinical trials. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine. 2017;18:586–589. doi:10.1016/j.mpaic.2017.07.005

15. Beil M., Proft I., Van Heerden D., Sviri S., Van Heerde P. Ethical considerations about artificial intelligence for prognostication in intensive care. Intensive Care Medicine Experimental. 2019;7(1):1–13. doi:10.1186/s40635-019-0286-6

16. Padala P.R., Jendro A.M., Padala K.P. Conducting clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic: investigator and participant perspectives. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance. 2020;6(2):1–4. doi:10.2196/18887

17. Gauthier S., Leuzy A., Racine E., Rosa-Neto P. Diagnosis and management of Alzheimer’s disease: past, present and future ethical issues. Progress in Neurobiology. 2013;110:102–113. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.01.003

18. Caro-Romero H.D. Heritable genome editing: an exploratory study from the bioethical principle of beneficence. Revista Colombiana de Bioética. 2020;15(1):1–17. doi:10.18270/rcb.v15i1.2732

19. Jansen L.A. Medical beneficence, nonmaleficence, and patients’ well-being. The Journal of Clinical Ethics. 2022;33(1):23–28.

20. Tucak I., Vinković M. Arguments for and against the introduction of compulsory vaccination for health care workers. InterEULawEast. 2022;9(1):1–32. doi:10.22598/iele.2022.9.1.1

21. Felthous A.R. The medical ethics of hospitalizing inmates with severe mental illness. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health. 2016;2(1):127–134. doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2016.01.009

22. Niveau G., Welle I. Forensic psychiatry, one subspecialty with two ethics? A systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics. 2018;19:1–10. doi:10.1186/s12910-018-0266-5

23. Louw J.M., Marcus T.S., Hugo J.F.M. Patientor person-centred practice in medicine? A review of concepts. African Journal of Primary Health Care and Family Medicine. 2017;9(1):1–7. doi:10.4102/phcfm.v9i1.1455

24. Acuña A.M.A., Moreno J.C.R., Neira J., Ribero O.F. Ethical principles and dilemmas in the discourse of healthcare practitioners involved with end-of-life care based on the advanced directives document. Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology. 2023;51(1):1–11. doi:10.5554/22562087.e1046

25. Kayser J.B., Mooney-Doyle K., Lanken P.N. Definitions and policy. ERS Monograph. 2016;1–20. doi:10.1183/2312508X.10008216

26. Fadda M., Fiordelli M., Amati R., Falvo I., Ibnidris A., Hurst S., et al. Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2021;36:207–214. doi:10.1002/gps.5416

27. Hirsch A. Well-being – more than health? Ethik in der Medizin. 2021;33(1):71–88. doi:10.1007/s00481-021-00608-3

28. Robertson D.W. Ethical theory, ethnography, and differences between doctors and nurses in approaches to patient care. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1996;22(5):292–299. doi:10.1136/jme.22.5.292

29. Raus K., Mortier E., Eeckloo K. The patient perspective in health care networks. BMC Medical Ethics. 2018;19:1–8. doi:10.1186/s12910-018-0298-x

30. Schultz B.N., Tolchin B., Kraschel K.L. The “rules of the road”: ethics, firearms, and the physician’s “lane”. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. 2020;48(4_suppl):142–145. doi:10.1177/1073110520979415

31. McCullough L.B., Coverdale J., Chervenak F.A. Teaching professional formation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic Medicine. 2020;95:1488–1491. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000003434

32. Reisman E.C. Ethical issues confronting nurses. Nursing Clinics of North America. 1988;23(4):789– 802.

33. Macklin R. Applying the four principles. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003;29:275–280.

34. Chervenak F.A., McCullough L.B., Skupski D., Chasen S.T. Ethical issues in the management of pregnancies complicated by fetal anomalies. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 2003;58(7):473–483. doi:10.1097/01.OGX.0000071485.75220.AE

35. Rosner F. Ethical dilemmas for physicians in time of war. Israel Medical Association Journal. 2010;12(3):133–135.

36. Bates R. A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2004;(27)3:341–347. doi:10.1016/j.evalprog-plan.2004.04.011

37. Solimini R., Busardò F.P., Gibelli F, Sirignano A., Ricci G. Ethical and legal challenges of telemedicine in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;30;57(12):1314. doi:10.3390/medicina57121314

38. Bouquet F. Ethical evaluation of biomedical research. Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità. 1998;34(2):197–201.

39. Nnate D.A. Treatment withdrawal of the patient at end of life: an analysis of values, ethics and guidelines in palliative care. Nursing Open. 2021;8(3):1023–1029. doi:10.1002/nop2.777

40. Bourret R., Vialla F., Martinez E. The principle of autonomy in the opinions of the National Consultative Ethics Committee: what are the limits? Médecine & Droit. 2015;133:90–98. doi:10.1016/j.meddro.2015.01.002

41. Ezeome I.V. Gamete donation – a review of ethical and legal issues. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2022;26(3):1–10. doi:10.29063/ajrh2022/v26i3.14

42. Akard T.F., Gilmer M.J., Hendricks-Ferguson V.L. Ethical considerations in oncology and palliative care research during COVID-19. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Nursing. 2022;39(3):178–184. doi:10.1177/27527530221073298

43. Keown J. The logical link between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Cambridge Law Journal. 2022;81(1):84–108. doi:10.1017/S0008197321001057

44. Murphy M. Exploring the ethics of a nurses’ strike during a pandemic. American Journal of Nursing. 2022;122(3):49–54. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000823000.39601.b1

45. Sabin J.E., Cocoros N.M., Garcia C., Goldsack J.C., Haynes K., Lin N.D., et al. Bystander ethics and Good Samaritanism: a paradox for learning health organizations. Hastings Center Report. 2019;49:18–26. doi:10.1002/hast.1031