Misconceptions about coercion and undue influence: Reflections on the views of irb members
Bioethics 27 (9):500-507 (2013)
Abstract
Payment to recruit research subjects is a common practice but raises ethical concerns relating to the potential for coercion or undue influence. We conducted the first national study of IRB members and human subjects protection professionals to explore attitudes as to whether and why payment of research participants constitutes coercion or undue influence. Upon critical evaluation of the cogency of ethical concerns regarding payment, as reflected in our survey results, we found expansive or inconsistent views about coercion and undue influence that may interfere with valuable research. In particular, respondents appear to believe that coercion and undue influence lie on a continuum; by contrast, we argue that they are wholly distinct: whereas undue influence is a cognitive distortion relating to assessment of risks and benefits, coercion is a threat of harm. Because payment is an offer, rather than a threat, payment is never coerciveAuthor Profiles
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01972.x
My notes
Similar books and articles
Money for research participation: Does it jeopardize informed consent?Christine Grady - 2001 - American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):40 – 44.
Ethics in human subjects research: Do incentives matter?Ruth W. Grant & Jeremy Sugarman - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (6):717 – 738.
How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence: Table 1.Robert Klitzman - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (4):224.
Benefits to research subjects in international trials: Do they reduce exploitation or increase undue inducement?Angela Ballantyne - 2008 - Developing World Bioethics 8 (3):178-191.
Undue inducement: The only objection to payment?Ari VanderWalde - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (5):25 – 27.
Bargaining Advantages and Coercion in the Market.Joan Mcgregor - 1988 - Philosophy Research Archives 14:23-50.
The physician's influence on patients' choices.Thomas Tomlinson - 1986 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (2).
Rationally Justifying Political Coercion.Russell Hardin - 1990 - Journal of Philosophical Research 15:79-91.
Analytics
Added to PP
2012-04-13
Downloads
154 (#83,604)
6 months
1 (#452,962)
2012-04-13
Downloads
154 (#83,604)
6 months
1 (#452,962)
Historical graph of downloads
Author Profiles
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.
A Qualitative Analysis of Ethical Perspectives on Recruitment and Consent for Human Intracranial Electrophysiology Studies.Joncarmen V. Mergenthaler, Winston Chiong, Daniel Dohan, Josh Feler, Cailin R. Lechner, Philip A. Starr & Jalayne J. Arias - 2021 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 12 (1):57-67.
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.
Avoiding Exploitation in Phase I Clinical Trials: More than (Un)Just Compensation.Matt Lamkin & Carl Elliott - 2018 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 46 (1):52-63.
Improving the Ethical Review of Health Policy and Systems Research: Some Suggestions.Govind Persad - 2021 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 49 (1):123-125.
References found in this work
False Hopes and Best Data: Consent to Research and the Therapeutic Misconception.Paul S. Appelbaum, Loren H. Roth, Charles W. Lidz, Paul Benson & William Winslade - 1987 - Hastings Center Report 17 (2):20-24.
Experimental Philosophy and the Problem of Free Will.Shaun Nichols - 2011 - Science 331 (6023):1401-1403.
Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):389-392.
Money for research participation: Does it jeopardize informed consent?Christine Grady - 2001 - American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):40 – 44.