Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (12):827-828 (2020)

Abstract
When payment is offered for controlled human infection model research, ethical concerns may be heightened due to unfamiliarity with this study design as well as perceptions—and misperceptions—regarding risk. Against this backdrop, we commend Grimwade et al 1 for their careful handling of the relevant issues, coupling empirical and conceptual approaches. We agree with foundational elements of the authors’ analysis, including the acceptability of payment for research risk.1 However, in our view, it is preferable to treat payment for risk as a discretionary incentive to achieve adequate recruitment and retention, rather than compensation owed as a matter of fairness. Grimwade et al 1 note that although their ‘Payment for Risk Model’ was ‘created specifically in the context of CHIM research, it has the potential to inform payment in other areas of medical research.’ We agree and would go further: we do not need a special payment framework for CHIMs because there is nothing so novel about them compared with other types of research as to demand a distinct approach. Any successful payment framework must address the following ethical issues: preserving informed consent ; treating participants fairly ; encouraging adequate recruitment and retention; avoiding deception by participants; and preserving public trust.2 Some of these issues may have particular salience in the context of CHIMs, but this study design does not demand consideration of entirely distinct ethical factors when evaluating offers of payment.2 We also agree with Grimwade et al 1 about several other key points.2 Given the burdens involved and …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2020-106829
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 60,949
External links

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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Permissibility Is the Only Feasible Deontic Primitive.Johan E. Gustafsson - 2020 - Philosophical Perspectives 34 (1):117-133.
Better Not to Have Children.Gerald K. Harrison & Julia Tanner - 2011 - Think, 10(27), 113-121 (27):113-121.
Are Humanitarian Military Interventions Obligatory?Jovana Davidovic - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (2):134–144.
Limits to Research Risks.F. G. Miller & S. Joffe - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (7):445-449.
Rights and Risk.Dennis McKerlie - 1986 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16 (2):239 - 251.
Crimina Carnis and Morally Obligatory Suicide.D. R. Cooley - 2006 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (3):327-356.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-10-14

Total views
4 ( #1,229,042 of 2,439,320 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #434,168 of 2,439,320 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes