Literature DB >> 19567441

The obligation to participate in biomedical research.

G Owen Schaefer1, Ezekiel J Emanuel, Alan Wertheimer.   

Abstract

The current prevailing view is that participation in biomedical research is above and beyond the call of duty. While some commentators have offered reasons against this, we propose a novel public goods argument for an obligation to participate in biomedical research. Biomedical knowledge is a public good, available to any individual even if that individual does not contribute to it. Participation in research is a critical way to support an important public good. Consequently, all have a duty to participate. The current social norm is that individuals participate only if they have a good reason to do so. The public goods argument implies that individuals should participate unless they have a good reason not to. Such a shift would be of great aid to the progress of biomedical research, eventually making society significantly healthier and longer lived.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19567441      PMCID: PMC2763192          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.931

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  26 in total

1.  Supererogation in clinical research.

Authors:  Deborah R Barnbaum
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2008-02-22

2.  Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research.

Authors:  Seth W Glickman; John G McHutchison; Eric D Peterson; Charles B Cairns; Robert A Harrington; Robert M Califf; Kevin A Schulman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-02-19       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Universal compulsory service in medical research.

Authors:  C D Herrera
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2003

4.  Making research a requirement of treatment: why we should sometimes let doctors pressure patients to participate in research.

Authors:  David Orentlicher
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.683

5.  Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects.

Authors:  J M Stern; R J Simes
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13

6.  How do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients?

Authors:  V A Jenkins; L J Fallowfield; A Souhami; M Sawtell
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 7.  Recruiting minorities into clinical trials: toward a participant-friendly system.

Authors:  G M Swanson; A J Ward
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1995-12-06       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  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

9.  Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise.

Authors:  Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-03-12       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  A duty to participate in research: does social context matter?

Authors:  Inmaculada de Melo-Martin
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.229

View more
  36 in total

1.  Viewing research participation as a moral obligation: in whose interests?

Authors:  Stuart Rennie
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  Voluntary consent: why a value-neutral concept won't work.

Authors:  Alan Wertheimer
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  2012-05-02

Review 3.  The Bio-PIN: a concept to improve biobanking.

Authors:  J J Nietfeld; Jeremy Sugarman; Jan-Eric Litton
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 4.  The Ethics of Big Data: Current and Foreseeable Issues in Biomedical Contexts.

Authors:  Brent Daniel Mittelstadt; Luciano Floridi
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 5.  Efficient design of clinical trials and epidemiological research: is it possible?

Authors:  Michael S Lauer; David Gordon; Gina Wei; Gail Pearson
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 32.419

6.  Principles of human subjects protections applied in an opt-out, de-identified biobank.

Authors:  Jill Pulley; Ellen Clayton; Gordon R Bernard; Dan M Roden; Daniel R Masys
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.689

7.  An ethical hierarchy for decision making during medical emergencies.

Authors:  Patrick D Lyden; Brett C Meyer; Thomas M Hemmen; Karen S Rapp
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 10.422

8.  Subversive subjects: rule-breaking and deception in clinical trials.

Authors:  Rebecca Dresser
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.718

9.  A Randomized Controlled Trial of Behavioral Nudges to Improve Enrollment in Critical Care Trials.

Authors:  Dustin C Krutsinger; Kelly L O'Leary; Susan S Ellenberg; Cody E Cotner; Scott D Halpern; Katherine R Courtright
Journal:  Ann Am Thorac Soc       Date:  2020-09

10.  When clinical care is like research: the need for review and consent.

Authors:  David Wendler; Rebecca Johnson
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2016-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.