Literature DB >> 21726261

Is payment a benefit?

Alan Wertheimer1.   

Abstract

What I call 'the standard view' claims that IRBs should not regard financial payment as a benefit to subjects for the purpose of risk/benefit assessment. Although the standard view is universally accepted, there is little defense of that view in the canonical documents of research ethics or the scholarly literature. This paper claims that insofar as IRBs should be concerned with the interests and autonomy of research subjects, they should reject the standard view and adopt 'the incorporation view.' The incorporation view is more consistent with the underlying soft-paternalist justification for risk-benefit assessment and demonstrates respect for the autonomy of prospective subjects. Adoption of the standard view precludes protocols that advance the interests of subjects, investigators, and society. After considering several objections to the argument, I consider several arguments for the standard view that do not appeal to the interests and autonomy of research subjects. Published 2011. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21726261      PMCID: PMC3189440          DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01892.x

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


  6 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Making risk-benefit assessments of medical research protocols.

Authors:  Alex Rajczi
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.718

3.  The problem with optimism in clinical trials.

Authors:  Lynn A Jansen
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug

4.  Facing up to paternalism in research ethics.

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Alan Wertheimer
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.683

5.  Which benefits of research participation count as 'direct'?

Authors:  Alexander Friedman; Emily Robbins; David Wendler
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 1.898

6.  Empirical assessment of whether moderate payments are undue or unjust inducements for participation in clinical trials.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; Jason H T Karlawish; David Casarett; Jesse A Berlin; David A Asch
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2004-04-12
  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  Participant Perspectives in an HIV Cure-Related Trial Conducted Exclusively in Women in the United States: Results from AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5366.

Authors:  Karine Dubé; Lara Hosey; Kate Starr; Liz Barr; David Evans; Erin Hoffman; Danielle M Campbell; Jane Simoni; Jeremy Sugarman; John Sauceda; Brandon Brown; Karen L Diepstra; Catherine Godfrey; Daniel R Kuritzkes; David A Wohl; Rajesh Gandhi; Eileen Scully
Journal:  AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 2.205

2.  Bioethical Issues in Providing Financial Incentives to Research Participants.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Medicoleg Bioeth       Date:  2015-06-24

3.  The Role of Intuition in Risk/Benefit Decision-Making in Human Subjects Research.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Ethical and Methodological Considerations for Evaluating Participant Views on Alzheimer's and Dementia Research.

Authors:  Clark Benson; Amanda Friz; Shannon Mullen; Laura Block; Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Participants' awareness of ethical compliance, safety and protection during participation in pharmaceutical industry clinical trials: a controlled survey.

Authors:  Gerardo González-Saldivar; René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez; Jose Luis Viramontes-Madrid; Alejandro Salcido-Montenegro; Neri Alejandro Álvarez-Villalobos; Victoria González-Nava; José Gerardo González-González
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies.

Authors:  Emily Largent
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 2.903

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.