Out of these statements result normative directives for life in the world, not only for the purpose of gaining salvation but also for concrete ethical behaviour in the context of the I-Thou (or person to person) relationship, of the clan, of the nation, and of society.
The authors point out that while guidelines are supposed to provide broad normative directives, there are discrepancies in approaches to benefits across these guidelines with "obvious potential to result in differing practical interpretations of the ethical conduct of global health research" ([ 2] p6).
Although there is over two decades of literature addressing CHWs, much of this is policy-driven, taking a directive, normative tone.
In European countries, the European Commission has issued European directives setting normative standards on this subject, while the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is in charge of the review and approval of marketing authorisation applications.
More specifically, medical and policy responses to rickets and osteomalacia among British Asians demonstrated the ways in which clinical attention to diet (as an example of the intersection between culture and biology) was directive and normative: it again and again argued for the benefits of assimilation, and the dangers of maintaining particular, distinctive, cultural practices.
Thomson's ambitious book separates normative judgments into two camps: directives, which concern what people ought to do (or what functions objects ought to perform); and evaluatives, which deal with how well someone or something performs.
Recently, some relevant decisions by the Italian Supreme Court dealt with the issue of advance directives, which still lack normative references in our legal system and are the subject of a lively and ongoing debate.
For instance, while it is acknowledged that normative guidelines are meant to provide broad directives as opposed to prescription of specific actions, we have shown that there are disparities among guidelines regarding the responsibilities of researchers to participants and the community.
Is there a 'normative fit' between EU norms and the local normative context?
The third value is that there are usually larger normative considerations at work when you interpret directive arrangements.
For example, European normative frameworks for clinical trials (Article 4, Directive 2001/20 EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001) hold that research on minors should be performed out of necessity, either because there might be some direct benefit to the participant, or because the research could benefit children with the same condition.
