Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Confining Choices: Should Inmates' Participation in Research be Limited?

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Historically, prisoners in the United Stateshave served as an inexpensive and readilyavailable source of human subjects forresearch. Coinciding with the civil rightsmovement, however, was an emerging conceptionof prisoners' rights that led to the NationalCommission for the Protection of Human Subjectsof Biomedical and Behavioral Research beingcharged with investigating the use of prisonersas research subjects. The recommendations thatevolved and the subsequent guidelines that havebeen implemented by the Department of Healthand Human Services significantly curtail theuse of prisoners as research subjects. Whilethese measures are designed to protect inmatesfrom the abuses of the past, of particularconcern to many health care officials isexclusion of inmates from experimental HIV/AIDSand hepatitis treatments. This paper addresseswhether the vulnerability of prisoners in theUnited States due to their incarceration issufficient to prohibit them from participationin clinical trials that offer the possibilityof life-saving treatment. It first outlinesthe evolution in moral thinking that has led tolaws broadly prohibiting prisoners frombiomedical research studies and then analyzescases in the law to develop ethical argumentsin support of the view that prisoners should beallowed to participate in clinical trials. Theconclusion is that prisoners should be allowedto participate in such trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Hornblum AM. Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison. New York: Routledge, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Faden RR, ed. Prisoners: Captive research population: In: The Human Radiation Experiments: Final Report of the President's Advisory Committee. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996: Ch. 9, 263–283.

  3. National Commission. Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Department of Health, Education and Welfare No. (OS) 78-0012, 1978.

  4. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Report and Recommendations, Research Involving Prisoners1976 (2- 3). Reprinted in 42 Fed. Reg. 3076–3077, 1977.

  5. Gauthier Candace Cummins. Philosophical foundations of respect for autonomy.Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal1993; 3(1): 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  6. The Nuremberg Code, 1947.

  7. Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, 1995. http:tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre.

  8. Talvi Silja JA. The prison as laboratory. In These Times, January 23, 2002.

  9. Baileyv. Lally. 481 F. Supp. 203 D. Md., 1979.

  10. Annas G, Glanz L, Katz B. Research with prisoners: The problem of voluntariness: In: Informed Consent to Human Experimentation: The Subject's Dilemma, 1977. Electronic text: Health Law Department, Boston University, 2000.

  11. Schroeder K. A recommendation to the FDA concerning drug research on prisoners. South Calif Law Review1983 (May); 56: 969–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. UAWv. Johnson Controls(99 U.S. 187, 1991).

  13. Chevronv. Echazabal, 122 U.S. 2045 (2002).

  14. Gerberv. Hickman, 264 F. 3d 882 9th Cir. (2001).

  15. Wasserman J. Prisoner's heart transplant raises questions of ethics. Associated Press, January 26, 2002.

  16. Hoffman S. Beneficial and unusual punishment: An argument in support of prisoner participation in clinical trials. Indiana Law Review2000; 33.

  17. Estellev. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).

  18. Wilsonv. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).

  19. Turnerv. Safely, 402 U.S. 78, (1987).

  20. Hellingv. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993).

  21. Friedman MC. Cruel and unusual punishment in the provision of prison medical care: Challenging the deliberate indifference standard. Vanderbilt Law Review, May 1992.

  22. Hampev. Hogan, 388 F. Supp. 13 (1974).

  23. National Institutes of Health. Guidelines on the Inclusion of Minority Subjects in Clinical Research. NIH Guide 1994; 23(11), March 18.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, 02881, USA

    Lynn Pasquerella

Authors
  1. Lynn Pasquerella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pasquerella, L. Confining Choices: Should Inmates' Participation in Research be Limited?. Theor Med Bioeth 23, 519–536 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021337801802

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021337801802

Search

Navigation