Online research in philosophy

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 7, Page 53-54, July 2012.

Deception, cheating, and loopholes within the IRB approval process have received significant attention in the past several years. Surveys of clinical researchers indicate common deception ranging from omitting information to outright lying, and controversy surrounding the FDA's decision not to ban “IRB shopping” (the practice of submitting protocols to multiple IRBs until one is found that will approve the protocol) has raised legitimate concerns about the integrity of the IRB process. While at first blush these practices seem to cast aspersions (...) on the integrity of clinical researchers, the moral issues raised go deeper than the ethics of cheating. To the extent that these practices are common, or represent an IRB system that places unreasonable burdens on those seeking IRB approval, we should consider whether non-compliance reflects problems of normative legitimacy for the IRB system itself. (shrink)

In clinical mental health research with children, both child and parent are essential members of the research team. The 3 R's of parent/child team membership are respect, rapport, and recognition. Respect and recognition include fair reimbursement for time, expense, and inconvenience, but the most important compensation for many families is the appreciation of the other team members for their sacrifice and cooperation. Reimbursement, although honoring the principles of justice and respect for persons, raises difficult issues about appropriate amount, particularly in (...) research involving children. The 3 R's are supported by the investigator 5 A's: attitude, adaptability, availability, attachment, and appreciation. Although the principles seem clear in the abstract, implementation encounters many practical problems. Perhaps the most difficult of these is determining the appropriate amount of compensation that avoids undue inducement but not at the expense of the 3 R's and 5 A's. (shrink)

: Ulysses contracts have faced paternalism objections since they first were proposed. Since the contracts are designed to override a present request from a legally competent patient in favor of a past request made by that patient, enforcement of these contracts was argued to be unjustifiable strong paternalism. Recent legal developments and new theories of practical reasoning suggest that the discussion of Ulysses contracts should be revived. This paper argues that with a proper understanding of the future-directed planning embodied in (...) Ulysses contracts, the charge of strong paternalism can be answered, and the enforcement of some Ulysses contracts may be justified under the rubric of weak paternalism. (shrink)