Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T05:16:29.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Is Participation in Research a Moral Duty?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Rosamond Rhodes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I argue for recognizing the moral duty to participate in research. I base my argument on the need for biomedical research and the fact that at some point studies require human participants, what I call collaborative necessity. In presenting my position, I argue against the widely accepted views of Han Jonas and all of those who have accepted his declarations without challenge. I go on to show why it is both just and fair to invite and encourage people to participate in studies. It is just because research participation is the necessary means to achieve the broadly shared goals of preventing and curing disease and alleviating disease symptoms. Mutual love requires us to be willing to do for others what we would want them to do for us. It is fair because the approach treats similarly situated people in the same way. Research participation is morally required because failing to do one's part in the collaborative project of advancing biomedical science would be free-riding. People who exempt themselves from participation while eagerly accepting benefits from others doing their part are taking advantage of their compatriots and treating themselves as more deserving than others when they are not.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 45 , Issue 3: Symposium - Controversies in Clinical Research Ethics , Fall 2017 , pp. 318 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Scanlon, T. M., What We Owe to Each Other (Belknap Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allhoff, F., “Free-Riding and Research Ethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 50-51; Beauchamp, T. L., “How Not to Rethink Research Ethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 31–33; De Melo-Martin, I., “A Duty to Participate in Research: Does Social Context Matter?” American Journal of Bioethics 8, no. 10 (2008): 28-36; Justo, L., “Trust, Understanding and Utopia in the Research Setting,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 56–58; List, J. M., “Histories of Mistrust and Protectionism: Disadvantaged Minority Groups and Human Subject Research Policies,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 53–56; London, A. J., “Does Research Ethics Rest on a Mistake? The Common Good, Reasonable Risk and Social Justice,” American Journal of Bio-ethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 37–39; Macklin, R., “Some Questionable Premises about Research Ethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no.1 (2005): 29-31; McGuire, A. L. and McCullough, L. B., “Respect as an Organizing Normative Category for Research Ethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): W1-W2; Miller, F. G., “Does Research Ethics Rest on a Mistake?” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no.1 (2005): 34-36; Morreim, H., “Research Versus Innovation: Real Differences,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no.1 (2005): 42-43; Sears, J. M., “Context Is Key for Voluntary and Informed Consent,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 47–48; Sharp, R. R. and Yarborough, M., “Additional Thoughts on Rethinking Research Ethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 40–42; Simmerling, M. and Schwegler, B., “Beginning Anew: Same Principles, different Direction for Research Ethics,” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1(2005): 44-46; Spike, J., “Putting the ‘Ethics’ into ‘Rresearch ethics,’” American Journal of Bio-ethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 51-53; Wachbroit, R. and Wasserman, D., “Research Participation: Are We subject to a Duty?” American Journal of Bioethics 5, no. 1 (2005): 48-49.Google Scholar
Jonas, H., “Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects,” Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1969), cited from Munson, R., Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, sixth ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000): at 499-508.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine, Value in Health Care: Accounting for Cost, Quality, Safety, Outcomes, and Innovation (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Ross, W. D., The Right and the Good (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930); Ross, W. D., The Foundations of Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939).Google Scholar
I have been presenting an “ideal theory” argument about what should be the case if we actually lived in a just society in which everyone shared in the benefits of the research enterprise. To the extent people have a limited or non-existent stake in the outcomes of research because they do not have any or a fair share of access to medical services, arguments from what John Rawls has called “non-ideal theory” may be applicable. Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971).Google Scholar
Menzel, P. T., “Justice, Liberty, and the Choice of Health-System Structure,” in Rhodes, R., Silvers, A., and Battin, M. P., eds., Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): at Chap. 2.Google Scholar
Beecher, H. K., “Ethics and Clinical Research,” New England Journal of Medicine 274 (1966): 1354-1360.Google Scholar
Grady, C. and Fauci, A. S., “The Role of the Virtuous Investigator in Protecting Human Research Subjects,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 59, no. 1 (2016): 122-131.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. et al., “De Minimis Risk: A Proposal for a New Category of Research Risk,” American Journal of Bioethics 11, no. 11 (2011): 1-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Nuremberg Code, available at <https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf> (last visited July 21, 2017).+(last+visited+July+21,+2017).>Google Scholar
McKinney, R. E., Beskow, L. M., and Ford, D. E., et al., “Use of Altered Informed Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Research,” Clinical Trials 12, no. 5 (2015): 494-502; Grady, C., Eckstein, L., and Berkman, B. et al., “Broad Consent for Research with Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions,” American Journal of Bioethics 15, no. 9 (2015): 34–42; Kass, N. E., Faden, R. R., Goodman, S. N., Pronovost, P., Tunis, S., and Beauchamp, T. L., “The Research-Treatment Distinction: A Problematic Approach for Determining Which Activities Should Have Ethical Oversight,” Hastings Center Report, Spec. No. (2013): S4-S15.Google Scholar
Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary, at “Chapter 2, The State of Clinical Research in the United States: An Overview,” based on the presentation of Dr. Krall (National Academy of Sciences, 2010), available at <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50886/> (last visited September 28, 2017).+(last+visited+September+28,+2017).>Google Scholar