Literature DB >> 16877629

"Fair's fair argument" and voluntarism in clinical research: but, is it fair?

M A Perna1.   

Abstract

This article sets out to counteract HM Evans's "fair's fair argument" in support of abolishing veto to research participation. Evans's argument attempts to assimilate ordinary clinical practice to clinical research. I shall refer to this attempt as "assimilation claim". I shall attempt to show that this assimilation, as it is carried out in Evans's argument, is misleading and, ultimately, logically undermines the conclusion. I shall then proceed to show that when the fair's fair argument is proposed independently of the assimilation claim, Evans's conclusion is not unavoidable and possible alternatives are equally open within the terms of the argument itself.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16877629      PMCID: PMC2563381          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.013763

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  2 in total

Review 1.  Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk.

Authors:  D B Resnik
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research?

Authors:  H M Evans
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.903

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.