Is There an Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research?
While there is no dearth of writing about ethical issues regarding human experimentation in the literature of bioethics, surprisingly little has been written, particularly in recent years, about the question of whether or not any type of obligation might exist to participate in medical research. Most contemporary discussions focus on the adequacies and inadequacies of informed consent in combination with institutional peer review boards in protecting the welfare of subjects against abuse by researchers. Or, to put the point more accurately, the discussion of the ethics of research involving human beings currently consists of adversarial haggling about the details of specific legal and regulatory provisions concerning exactly what research must be reviewed, who is competent to consent, who ought to do the reviewing of experimental protocols, and exactly what degree of detail makes for a truly informed consent .
KeywordsPublic Good Biomedical Research Human Experimentation Social Contract Social Enterprise
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Arras, J. and Hunt, R. (eds.): 1983, Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (2nd ed.), Mayfield Press, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
- 4.Barber, B. et al.: 1973, Research on Human Subjects, Russell Sage, New York.Google Scholar
- 6.Beecher, H. K.: 1970, Research and the Individual, Appendix A, Little Brown and Co., Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- 7.Carmi, A. (ed): 1979, ‘The Challenge of Experimentation’, in Medical Experimentation, Turtledove Press, Ramat-Gan, Israel.Google Scholar
- 8.Chalmers, T.C., et al.: ‘Controlled Studies in Clinical Cancer Research’, New England Journal of Medicine 287, 75–78.Google Scholar
- 9.Cooke, R. A.: 1980, ‘Some Notes on the Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research’, Report prepared for the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- 11.Fishkin, J.: 1982, The Limits of Obligation, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
- 12.Freund, P. A. (ed.): 1970, Experimentation with Human Subjects, George Braziller, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
- 13.Fried, C.: 1974, Medical Experimentation, Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
- 14.Hart, H. L. A.: 1955, ‘Are There Any Natural Rights?’, Philosophical Review 64, reprinted in A. Melden (ed), Human Rights (1977), Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, California, pp. 61–75.Google Scholar
- 15.Jonas, H.: 1970, ‘Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects’, in P. Freund (ed.), Experimentation with Human Subjects, George Braziller, New York.Google Scholar
- 16.Katz, J.: 1972, Experimentation with Human Beings, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
- 17.McCormick, R.: 1974, ‘Proxy Consent in the Experimental Situation’, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 18, 2–20.Google Scholar
- 19.Nozick, R.: 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
- 20.President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1983, Implementing Human Research Regulations, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- 21.Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- 22.Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. L.: 1975, The Volunteer Subject, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
- 23.Simmons, A. J.: 1979, Moral Principles and Political Obligations, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar