From the Ideal Market to the Ideal Clinic: Constructing a Normative Standard of Fairness for Human Subjects Research
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (1):79-106 (2011)
Preventing exploitation in human subjects research requires a benchmark of fairness against which to judge the distribution of the benefits and burdens of a trial. This paper proposes the ideal market and its fair market price as a criterion of fairness. The ideal market approach is not new to discussions about exploitation, so this paper reviews Wertheimer's inchoate presentation of the ideal market as a principle of fairness, attempt of Emanuel and colleagues to apply the ideal market to human subjects research, and Ballantyne's criticisms of both the ideal market and the resulting benchmark of fairness. It argues that the criticism of this particular benchmark is on point, but the rejection of the ideal market is mistaken. After presenting a complete account of the ideal market, this paper proposes a new method for applying the ideal market to human subjects research and illustrates the proposal by considering a sample case
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
George J. Annas (1987). Transferring the Ethical Hot Potato. Hastings Center Report 17 (1):20-21.
Robert A. Crouch & John D. Arras (1998). AZT Trials and Tribulations. Hastings Center Report 28 (6):26-34.
Paul B. Miller & Charles Weijer (2003). Rehabilitating Equipoise. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (2):93-118.
Citations of this work BETA
L. B. Mccullough (2011). Arboriculture in Clinical Ethics: Using Philosophical Critical Appraisal to Clear Away Underbrush in Ethical Analysis and Argument. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (1):1-5.
Similar books and articles
Alistair MacLeod (2000). Human Dignity, Individual Liberty, And the Free Market Ideal. Social Philosophy Today 16:113-123.
Jeremy Snyder (2010). Multiple Forms of Exploitation in International Research: The Need for Multiple Standards of Fairness. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):40-41.
Angela Ballantyne (2008). 'Fair Benefits' Accounts of Exploitation Require a Normative Principle of Fairness: Response to Gbadegesin and Wendler, and Emanuel Et Al. Bioethics 22 (4):239–244.
A. Askland (2002). Floating Maximally Many Boats: A Preference for the Broad Distribution of Market Benefits. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 40 (1):91 - 99.
Robert Gielissen & Johan Graafland (2009). Concepts of Price Fairness: Empirical Research Into the Dutch Coffee Market. Business Ethics 18 (2):165-178.
Jason Brennan (2013). Is Market Society Intrinsically Repugnant? Journal of Business Ethics 112 (2):271-281.
Robert Jubb (2012). Tragedies of Non-Ideal Theory. European Journal of Political Theory 11 (3):229-246.
John Thrasher (forthcoming). Free Market Fairness. [REVIEW] Public Choice.
John Kohls & Sandra L. Christensen (2002). The Business Responsibility for Wealth Distribution in a Globalized Political-Economy: Merging Moral Economics and Catholic Social Teaching. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 35 (3):223 - 234.
A. F. Kurtulmus (2012). Dworkin's Prudent Insurance Ideal: Two Revisions. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (4):243-246.
Eva Erman & Niklas Möller (2013). Three Failed Charges Against Ideal Theory. Social Theory and Practice 39 (1):19-44.
James Stacey Taylor (2006). Why the 'Black Market' Arguments Against Legalizing Organ Sales Fail. Res Publica 12 (2):163-178.
J. Barkmann & R. Marggraf (2004). The Long-Term Protection of Biological Diversity—Lessons From Market Ethics. Poiesis and Praxis 3 (s 1-2):3-21.
Rutger Claassen (2011). Communication as Commodity: Should the Media Be on the Market? Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):65-79.
Added to index2010-12-28
Total downloads10 ( #120,276 of 1,088,371 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?