The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Type

Report

Intellectual base

Grey literature

Year

1979

Link

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

Cited from

philosophy

Cited by

11 citations across 11 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Consent
  • valid consent requires information (the consenting party understands what is authorized and its material implications), voluntariness (free from coercion, undue pressure, or deception), and capacity (cognitive and legal standing to authorize); and (4) the legitimating-transformative effect

    This sourceInformed consent is the application of the first Belmont principle (Respect for Persons), legitimating research that would otherwise violate autonomy (supports D21-063, D21-069).

Mechanisms

• Consent Confirmation Form
  • The discipline that guards it is to treat the signature as the last step, valid only once scope is bounded, the decline is genuinely costless, and understanding is actually shown — never as the thing that by itself makes consent real

    This sourceRequires demonstrated comprehension and treats a signature alone as insufficient to make consent valid.

• Consent Form
  • Its failure mode is checkbox consent theater — treating the signature as the consent rather than the record of it, so an organization collects clean forms while comprehension and voluntariness go unchecked.
• Consent Protocol
  • Done well it is a working instance of informed consent: understanding, voluntariness, and a real option to decline.

    This sourceDefines informed consent through information, comprehension, and voluntariness, including freedom to refuse or withdraw.

• Consented Challenge Contract
  • It draws directly on the logic of informed consent as codified for human-subjects research: autonomy, beneficence, and a fair distribution of burdens and benefits.

    This sourceCodifies informed consent under respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice in distributing research burdens and benefits.

• Ethical Non-Production Rule
  • It is the operational face of the consent-and-welfare principles codified in modern research ethics.

    This sourceCodifies respect for persons, informed consent, beneficence, and welfare protection as foundational principles of modern human-subject research ethics.

• Ethical Review
  • It is the disciplined descendant of research-ethics review, whose canonical charter, the Belmont Report, grounds any such review in respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

    This sourceThe Belmont Report identifies respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as the basic ethical principles governing human-subject research.

• Ethical Review for Taboo Topic
  • Its strength is that it forces purpose and harm into the same frame before anything is exposed, and it makes "is this proportionate?" an explicit test rather than an afterthought.

    This sourceRequires a systematic, nonarbitrary assessment of whether research risks are justified by anticipated benefits.

• Informed Consent Protocol
  • An informed consent protocol governs the moment before the operating room, in the tradition articulated by the Belmont Report's respect-for-persons principle

    This sourceFor human-subject research, the Belmont Report links informed consent to the principle of respect for persons.

• Institutional Review Gate
  • The board does not reformat the proposal or count how many studies are in the queue; it judges this one against the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice set out in the Belmont Report.

    This sourceIt is the canonical criteria source IRBs weigh protocols against, which is why a review gate's decision is a judgment against principles rather than a checklist.

• Research Consent Protocol
  • Its failure mode is process compliance as a substitute for genuine consent — a board-approved packet and a valid signature that satisfy the regime while a participant, often one who feels their care depends on it, has not truly understood or freely chosen.

    This sourceRequires informed consent to include adequate information, comprehension, and voluntary choice free from coercion or undue influence, including pressure tied to health services.

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 11 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.

Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Links previously used in the corpus

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.

• https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html ×1

Registry ID ref:86e7e10332c7 · see in the full table