Benefits to research subjects in international trials: Do they reduce exploitation or increase undue inducement?
Developing World Bioethics 8 (3):178-191 (2008)
Abstract
There is an alleged tension between undue inducement and exploitation in research trials. This paper considers claims that increasing the benefits to research subjects enrolled in international, externally-sponsored clinical trials should be avoided on the grounds that it may result in the undue inducement of research subjects. This article contributes to the debate about exploitation versus undue inducement by introducing an analysis of the available empirical research into research participants' motivations and the influence of payments on research subjects' behaviour and risk assessment. Admittedly, the available research in this field is limited, but the research that has been conducted suggests that financial rewards do not distort research subjects' behaviour or blind them to the risks involved with research. Therefore, I conclude that research sponsors should prioritise the prevention of exploitation in international research by providing greater benefits to research participants. (edited)DOI
10.1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00175.x
My notes
Similar books and articles
Multiple Forms of Exploitation in International Research: The Need for Multiple Standards of Fairness.Jeremy Snyder - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):40-41.
Money for research participation: Does it jeopardize informed consent?Christine Grady - 2001 - American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):40 – 44.
The Duty to Exclude: Excluding People at Undue Risk from Research.Charles Weijer & Abraham Fuks - unknown
‘Fair benefits’ accounts of exploitation require a normative principle of fairness: Response to Gbadegesin and Wendler, and Emanuel et al.Angela Ballantyne - 2008 - Bioethics 22 (4):239–244.
Protecting communities in health research from exploitation.Segun Gbadegesin & David Wendler - 2006 - Bioethics 20 (5):248-253.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
78 (#157,475)
6 months
3 (#226,063)
2009-01-28
Downloads
78 (#157,475)
6 months
3 (#226,063)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
How Payment For Research Participation Can Be Coercive.Joseph Millum & Michael Garnett - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (9):21-31.
Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model.Olivia Grimwade, Julian Savulescu, Alberto Giubilini, Justin Oakley, Joshua Osowicki, Andrew J. Pollard & Anne-Marie Nussberger - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (12):815-826.
How to Do Research Fairly in an Unjust World.Angela J. Ballantyne - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):26-35.
Serial Participation and the Ethics of Phase 1 Healthy Volunteer Research.Rebecca L. Walker, Marci D. Cottingham & Jill A. Fisher - 2018 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 43 (1):83-114.
Benefits and payments for research participants: Experiences and views from a research centre on the Kenyan coast. [REVIEW]Sassy Molyneux, Stephen Mulupi, Lairumbi Mbaabu & Vicki Marsh - 2012 - BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):13-.
References found in this work
Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries.Peter Lurie & Sidney M. Wolfe - 2012 - In Stephen Holland (ed.), Arguing About Bioethics. Routledge. pp. 479.
Money for research participation: Does it jeopardize informed consent?Christine Grady - 2001 - American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):40 – 44.
Wrongful beneficence: Exploitation and third world sweatshops.Chris Meyers - 2004 - Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3):319–333.