Supererogation in clinical research

Scientific Contribution


‘Supererogation’ is the notion of going beyond the call of duty. The concept of supererogation has received scrutiny in ethical theory, as well as clinical bioethics. Yet, there has been little attention paid to supererogation in research ethics. Supererogation is examined in this paper from three perspectives: (1) a summary of two analyses of ‘supererogation’ in moral theory, as well as an examination as to whether acts of supererogation exist; (2) a discussion of supererogation in clinical practice, including arguments that both physicians and patients can practice acts of supererogation; (3) a discussion as to why researchers, qua researchers, are not routinely recognized to perform acts of supererogation, while at the same time the very nature of research subject participation involves supererogation. The article concludes by considering three examples of supererogation on the part of researchers, with a plea that researchers’ supererogatory actions be recognized as such.


Ethical theory Physicians Research ethics Research participants Supererogation 



Earlier versions of this paper were presented at two conferences sponsored by Clinical Research Management, one at the Walter Reed Army Institute for Research, Silver Springs, Maryland, in October 2006 and the other in Cleveland, Ohio, in December 2006. Additionally, I wish to thank two anonymous reviewers at Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy for their helpful comments and suggestions.


  1. Brown, B.F. 2006. Proxy consent for the incompetent elderly. In Biomedical ethics, eds. T.A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia, 240–247. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Callahan, D. 2003. What price better health? Hazards of the research imperative. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Downie, R.S. 2002. Supererogation and altruism: A comment. Journal of Medical Ethics 28(2): 75–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Glannon, W., and Ross, L. 2002. Are doctors altruistic? Journal of Medical Ethics 28(2): 68–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Heyd, D. 1982. Supererogation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. King, N.M.P. 2000. Defining and describing benefit appropriately in clinical trials. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28: 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kottow, M.H. 1990. Against the magnanimous in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 16(3): 124–128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. McKay, A.C. 2002. Supererogation and the profession of medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 28(2): 70–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mellema, G. 1991. Beyond the call of duty: Supererogation, obligation and offence. Albany, New York: SUNY University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Nuremberg Code, 1948. In Research ethics: Text and readings,eds. D.R. Barnbaum and M. Byron, 2001, 28–29. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Standord Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ‘Supererogation’, Accessed September 7 2006.
  12. Thomasma, D.C., and Kushner, T. 1995. A dialogue on compassion and supererogation in medicine. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 4(4): 415–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Urmson, J.O. 1958. Saints and heroes. In Essays in moral philospohy, ed. A.I. Melden, 198–216. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyKent State UniversityKentUSA

Personalised recommendations