An example cited in the Belmont Report (The National Commission 1979) stated that "During the 19th and early 20th centuries the burdens of serving as research subjects fell largely upon poor ward patients, while the benefits of improved medical care flowed primarily to private patients." This is an example of a violation of which Belmont principle?

It shows that the justice principle was violated.

In conclusion, the scenario is not fair thereby violating the principle of justice. Everyone is equal and no one is above the other person.

Read related link on:

link

The answer is Justice principle

Explanation:

The Belmont Report is a document that sets ethical standards for research based on three main principles. One of these is the justice principle, this proposes the benefits or positive aspects derived from research, as well as, negative ones should be equally distributed. This means beneficial findings should benefit all the population and researchers cannot take advantage of vulnerable groups.

This principle is being violated in the situation presented because the burdens and benefits are not equally distributed. Indeed, in this situation vulnerable populations such as poor patients ned to serve as participants while wealthy patients benefit, which shows a lack of equality in research or unjustice.

the first lok sabha in 1951 had 22 women mps. the current lok sabha has 66. in the span of 54 years and 16 lok sabha elections it amounts to a three- fold increase in the number of women mps that made their way to the lower house of the parliament. from 5% in 1951, women mps constitute 12.2% of the lok sabha today. the rise in numbers has been steady through the years, both in absolute numbers and percentages. the notable exceptions have been the dip in numbers during the 6th lok sabha in 1977, the 9th lok sabha in 1989 and most recently the 14th lok sabha in 2004. the trends show a marked and steady increase from 1991 onwards to the present lok sabha. the 1991 figures show a jump from 5% in the previous lok sabha to 7% and the steady increase from thereon (except for 2004). it would be interesting to understand the factors for this watershed year and continuous rise and also the fall in numbers during 2004.

s no year number of women mps percentage of women mps

1 1951 22 4.50%

2 1957 22 4.45%

3 1962 31 6.28%

4 1967 29 5.58%

5 1971 28 5.41%

6 1977 19 3.51%

7 1980 28 5.29%

8 1984 43 7.95%

9 1989 29 5.48%

10 1991 39 7.30%

11 1996 40 7.37%

12 1998 43 7.92%

13 1999 49 9.02%

14 2004 45 8.29%

15 2009 59 10.87%

16 2014 66 12.15%

the average representation of women mps( 12.15%) is higher than the national average of women mlas in state assemblies, which stands at a dismal 9%. while the numbers have increased over the years, the percentage of women that make up the lok sabha even today is not a figure to be proud of, especially when the ideal number should be at 33% at least. we still have a long way to go.

percentage of women mps in various lok sabhaswomen contestants in elections to the lok sabha

central to the question of women’s representation in lok sabha is the appetite for women to take the political plunge and jump into the fray along with and against male candidates, getting tickets from their respective parties to contest elections and finally winning the seats that they contest. while popular perception might be that few women are willing to or have taken the political plunge, number of women contestants tells an interesting story. between 1957(the earliest data available) and 2015, the total number of women contestants has increased from 45 to 668. that is a whopping 15 fold increase in the number of women contesting. if we looked at the data for male contestants for the same years, the number has increased from 1474 to 7583, a five- fold increase. the 15 fold increase in women contestants indicates towards the growing appetite for women to enter the political fray and willingness to be part of political decision-making.

number of female contenstants in various lok sabha elections

explanation:

answer; jewish immigrants;