American Journal of Bioethics 19 (9):21-31 (2019)
AbstractThe idea that payment for research participation can be coercive appears widespread among research ethics committee members, researchers, and regulatory bodies. Yet analysis of the concept of coercion by philosophers and bioethicists has mostly concluded that payment does not coerce, because coercion necessarily involves threats, not offers. In this article we aim to resolve this disagreement by distinguishing between two distinct but overlapping concepts of coercion. Consent-undermining coercion marks out certain actions as impermissible and certain agreements as unenforceable. By contrast, coercion as subjection indicates a way in which someone’s interests can be partially set back in virtue of being subject to another’s foreign will. While offers of payment do not normally constitute consent-undermining coercion, they do sometimes constitute coercion as subjection. We offer an analysis of coercion as subjection and propose three possible practical responses to worries about the coerciveness of payment.
Similar books and articles
Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):389-392.
Misconceptions about coercion and undue influence: Reflections on the views of irb members.Emily Largent, Christine Grady, Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (9):500-507.
Exploitative, irresistible, and coercive offers: why research participants should be paid well or not at all.Sara Belfrage - 2016 - Journal of Global Ethics 12 (1):69-86.
Coercive offers and research participation: a comment on Wertheimer and Miller.J. McMillan - 2010 - Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (7):383-384.
Money, coercion, and undue inducement: attitudes about payments to research participants.E. A. Largent, C. Grady, F. G. Miller & A. Wertheimer - 2012 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 34 (1):1-8.
Surgical castration, coercive offers and coercive effects: it is still not about consent.John McMillan - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (9):596-596.
The Nature of Political Coercion: An Analysis and Justification.Wei Han - 2004 - Dissertation, The University of Connecticut
Consent Under Pressure: The Puzzle of Third Party Coercion.Joseph Millum - 2014 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (1):113-127.
Coercive Offers: A Study of the Nature and Ethics of Coercion.J. Gregory Dees - 1986 - Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University
Coercion, Threats, and the Puzzle of Blackmail.Grant Lamond - 1996 - In A. P. Simester & A. T. H. Smith (eds.), Harm and Culpability. Oxford University Press. pp. 215-38.
Is Coercion Involved in the Decision-Making of Medical Students Participating in Research?: A Cross-Sectional Study.Pooja Vaidya, Sandhya Kamat, Yashashri Shetty & Kritarth Naman Singh - 2016 - Asian Bioethics Review 8 (1):20-36.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
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.
Ethically Allocating COVID-19 Drugs Via Pre-approval Access and Emergency Use Authorization.Jamie Webb, Lesha D. Shah & Holly Fernandez Lynch - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (9):4-17.
Research Payment and Its Social Justice Concerns.Jill A. Fisher - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (9):35-36.
The Continued Complexities of Paying Research Participants.Christine Grady - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (9):5-7.
References found in this work
Exploitation, Vulnerability, and Social Domination.Nicholas Vrousalis - 2013 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 41 (2):131-157.