David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 27 (2):105-116 (2013)
What I call ‘the standard view’ claims that IRBs should not regard financial payment as a benefit to subjects for the purpose of risk/benefit assessment. Although the standard view is universally accepted, there is little defense of that view in the canonical documents of research ethics or the scholarly literature. This paper claims that insofar as IRBs should be concerned with the interests and autonomy of research subjects, they should reject the standard view and adopt ‘the incorporation view.’ The incorporation view is more consistent with the underlying soft-paternalist justification for risk-benefit assessment and demonstrates respect for the autonomy of prospective subjects. Adoption of the standard view precludes protocols that advance the interests of subjects, investigators, and society. After considering several objections to the argument, I consider several arguments for the standard view that do not appeal to the interests and autonomy of research subjects
|Keywords||risk/benefit assessment payment autonomy paternalism|
|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
Eric Chwang (2014). Shared Vulnerabilities in Research. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (12):3-11.
Similar books and articles
Trisha B. Phillips (2011). A Living Wage for Research Subjects. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (2):243-253.
Paul Litton, Non-Beneficial Pediatric Research and the Best Interests Standard: A Legal and Ethical Reconciliation.
Alex Rajczi (2004). Making Risk-Benefit Assessments of Medical Research Protocols. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32 (2):338-348.
Daryl Pullman (2002). Conflicting Interests, Social Justice and Proxy Consent to Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):523 – 545.
Gopal Sreenivasan (2007). Does Informed Consent to Research Require Comprehension? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:85-93.
Robert C. Hughes (2014). Justifying Community Benefit Requirements in International Research. Bioethics 28 (8):397-404.
Stephen Napier (2013). Challenging Research on Human Subjects: Justice and Uncompensated Harms. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):29-51.
Emily Largent, Christine Grady, Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer (2013). Misconceptions About Coercion and Undue Influence: Reflections on the Views of Irb Members. Bioethics 27 (9):500-507.
Trisha Phillips (2011). Exploitation in Payments to Research Subjects. Bioethics 25 (4):209-219.
Georg Spielthenner (2012). Risk-Benefit Analysis: From a Logical Point of View. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (2):161-170.
David Wendler (2005). Protecting Subjects Who Cannot Give Consent: Toward a Better Standard for "Minimal" Risks. Hastings Center Report 35 (5):37-43.
Elisabeth Weisser-Lohmann (2012). Ethical Aspects of Vulnerability in Research. Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):157-162.
David Wendler & Emily Abdoler (2011). Does It Matter Whether Investigators Intend to Benefit Research Subjects? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):353-370.
A. John Simmons (1996). External Justifications and Institutional Roles. Journal of Philosophy 93 (1):28-36.
Annette Rid & David Wendler (2011). A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (2):141-179.
Added to index2011-07-05
Total downloads11 ( #219,154 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?