Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (12):815-826 (2020)

Authors
Alberto Giubilini
Università degli Studi di Milano (PhD)
Justin Oakley
Monash University
Abstract
Controlled Human Infection Model research involves the infection of otherwise healthy participants with disease often for the sake of vaccine development. The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the urgency of enhancing CHIM research capability and the importance of having clear ethical guidance for their conduct. The payment of CHIM participants is a controversial issue involving stakeholders across ethics, medicine and policymaking with allegations circulating suggesting exploitation, coercion and other violations of ethical principles. There are multiple approaches to payment: reimbursement, wage payment and unlimited payment. We introduce a new Payment for Risk Model, which involves paying for time, pain and inconvenience and for risk associated with participation. We give philosophical arguments based on utility, fairness and avoidance of exploitation to support this. We also examine a cross-section of the UK public and CHIM experts. We found that CHIM participants are currently paid variable amounts. A representative sample of the UK public believes CHIM participants should be paid approximately triple the UK minimum wage and should be paid for the risk they endure throughout participation. CHIM experts believe CHIM participants should be paid more than double the UK minimum wage but are divided on the payment for risk. The Payment for Risk Model allows risk and pain to be accounted for in payment and could be used to determine ethically justifiable payment for CHIM participants.Although many research guidelines warn against paying large amounts or paying for risk, our empirical findings provide empirical support to the growing number of ethical arguments challenging this status quo. We close by suggesting two ways by which payment for risk could be calculated.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2020-106438
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: 64,261
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

How Payment For Research Participation Can Be Coercive.Joseph Millum & Michael Garnett - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (9):21-31.
Bioethics: Why Philosophy is Essential for Progress.Julian Savulescu - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (1):28-33.
Payment for Research Participation: A Coercive Offer?A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):389-392.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Good Reasons to Vaccinate: Mandatory or Payment for Risk?Julian Savulescu - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (2):78-85.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Increasing the Amount of Payment to Research Subjects.D. B. Resnick - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9):e14-e14.
A Living Wage for Research Subjects.Trisha B. Phillips - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (2):243-253.
Payments to Research Subjects.Martin Wilkinson - 2005 - Monash Bioethics Review 24 (1):70-74.
The Ethics of Payments: Paper, Plastic, or Bitcoin?James J. Angel & Douglas McCabe - 2015 - Journal of Business Ethics 132 (3):603-611.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-09-26

Total views
19 ( #565,047 of 2,456,032 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #117,631 of 2,456,032 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes