Literature DB >> 11655118

Paying people to participate in research: why not? A response to Wilkinson and Moore.

Paul McNeill.   

Abstract

This paper argues against paying people to participate in research. Volunteering to participate as a subject in a research program is not like taking a job. The main difference is to do with the risks inherent in research. Experimentation on human beings is, by definition, trying out something with an unknown consequence and exposes people to risks of harm which cannot be known in advance. This is the main reason for independent review by committee of research programs. It is based on a recognition that researchers are not always capable of putting the interests of their subjects ahead of their research objectives. It is not simply a matter of individual autonomy. Society has an obligation, prior to the protection of individual freedom and autonomy, to establish basic safeguards that are equitable in their operation. Any inducement for participating in research would add to the difficulty subjects have in adequately assessing the risks of participating in research. An acceptance of inducement to participate in research would further increase the inequity of research conducted on the impecunious for the benefit of the well-off.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 11655118     DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioethics        ISSN: 0269-9702            Impact factor:   1.898


  34 in total

1.  Paying hypertension research subjects.

Authors:  David Casarett; Jason Karlawish; David A Asch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process.

Authors:  J P Bentley; P G Thacker
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Challenging assumptions about minority participation in US clinical research.

Authors:  Jill A Fisher; Corey A Kalbaugh
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Strategies to minimize risks and exploitation in phase one trials on healthy subjects.

Authors:  Adil E Shamoo; David B Resnik
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 11.229

Review 5.  Towards evidence based bioethics.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-10-15

6.  Scientific research is a moral duty.

Authors:  John Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 7.  Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Philip J Candilis; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 9.306

8.  Kidney sales and the analogy with dangerous employment.

Authors:  Erik Malmqvist
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2015-06

9.  Ethical considerations for conducting health disparities research in community health centers: a social-ecological perspective.

Authors:  Carla Boutin-Foster; Ebony Scott; Jennifer Melendez; Anna Rodriguez; Rosio Ramos; Balavenkatesh Kanna; Walid Michelen
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  What we worry about when we worry about the ethics of clinical research.

Authors:  David Wendler
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2011-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.