David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Behavior 2 (3):203 – 214 (1992)
In response to Korn, Huelsman, and Reed's (1992)question, "Who defines those interests, and how serious must the setback be?" (p. 126), we argue that a wrongful (unjust) harm (a setback of interest) is not equivalent to a hurt (a temporary distressing mental state) and that the interests of importance are welfare interests (general means to our ulterior aims), not just a desire to avoid unpleasant mental states (hurts). To set back a welfare interest is to reverse its course or to impede, thwart, defeat, or doom it. It is the primary responsibility of the investigator to define both welfare interests and the risk of harm. An informed consent - one with substantial understanding, in substantial absence of control by others, and given intentionally - allows participants to autonomously authorize participation in research, including their toleration of acts of mental discomfort or distress during an experiment. Not only were our participants not wrongfully harmed, they benefited and were willing to volunteer for future research. No strong evidence has been advanced or linked to guided imagery in a way that would justify its restraint; to so claim evokes a standard of legal paternalism that fails to respect participants' competence and autonomy to choose to participate in research on rape using guided imagery.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Fred Korn & Shulamit R. Decktor Korn (1983). Where People Don't Promise. Ethics 93 (3):445-450.
Gerald P. Koocher (2002). Using the Cables Model to Assess and Minimize Risk in Research: Control Group Hazards. Ethics and Behavior 12 (1):75 – 86.
K. S. Steinsbekk & B. Solberg (2011). Biobanks--When is Re-Consent Necessary? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):236-250.
Paul M. McNeill (1993). The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation. Cambridge University Press.
Paul B. Miller & Charles Weijer (2006). Trust Based Obligations of the State and Physician-Researchers to Patient-Subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (9):542-547.
David Wendler & Christine Grady (2008). What Should Research Participants Understand to Understand They Are Participants in Research? Bioethics 22 (4):203–208.
Annette Christy McGaha & James H. Korn (1995). The Emergence of Interest in the Ethics of Psychological Research with Humans. Ethics and Behavior 5 (2):147 – 159.
Jamess H. Korn, Timothy J. Huelsman, Cynthia K. Shinabarger Reed & Michelle Aiello (1992). Perceived Ethicality of Guided Imagery in Rape Research. Ethics and Behavior 2 (1):1 – 14.
James H. Korn, Timothy J. Huelsman & Cynthia K. Shinabarger Reed (1992). Logic, Ethics, and Rhetoric of Research on Rape: A Reply to Mosher and Bond. Ethics and Behavior 2 (2):123 – 128.
Donald L. Mosher & Susan B. Bond (1992). "Little Rapes," Specious Claims, and Moral Hubris: A Reply to Korn, Huelsman, Reed, and Aiello. Ethics and Behavior 2 (2):109 – 121.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #451,850 of 1,099,560 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #300,754 of 1,099,560 )
How can I increase my downloads?