Authors
Stephen Napier
Villanova University
Abstract
Ethical challenges to certain aspects of research on human subjects are not uncommon; examples include challenges to first-in-human trials (Chapman in J Clin Res Bioethics 2(4):1–8, 2011), certain placebo controlled trials (Anderson in J Med Philos 31:65–81, 2006; Anderson and Kimmelman in Kennedy Inst Ethics J 20(1):75–98, 2010) and “sham” surgery (Macklin in N Engl J Med 341:992–996, 1999). To date, however, there are few challenges to research when the subjects are competent and the research is more than minimal risk with no promise of direct benefit. The principal reason given for allowing research that is more than minimal risk without benefit is that we should respect the autonomy of competent subjects. I argue that though the moral intuitions informing respect for autonomy are sound, there is another set of intuitions regarding what we take to be just treatment of another when one agent knowingly causes or allows suffering on another agent. I argue that concerns generated by commutative justice serve as limitations on permissible research. I highlight our intuitions informing this notion of justice by appealing to work done on theodicy; what counts as a morally sufficient reason for God to allow suffering in humans is applicable also to the researcher-subject relationship. I conclude that all human subjects who are exposed to more than minimal risk research should enjoy the same actual protections (e.g., subpart D) as those given subjects who cannot consent
Keywords Research  Justice  Autonomy  Morally sufficient reason  Consent to harm
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11017-013-9241-9
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: 62,363
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics.Neil C. Manson - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
The Retrieval of Ethics.Talbot Brewer - 2009 - Oxford University Press.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Inalienable Right to Withdraw From Research.Terrance McConnell - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (4):840-846.
Making Risk-Benefit Assessments of Medical Research Protocols.Alex Rajczi - 2004 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (2):338-348.
Is Payment a Benefit?Alan Wertheimer - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (2):105-116.
Reflections on Governance Models for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells.Jeremy Sugarman - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):251-256.
Non-Human Primates: The Appropriate Subjects of Biomedical Research?M. Quigley - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (11):655-658.
Knowing the Unknown and Informed Consent.A. T. Nuyen - 2007 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):213-223.
Conflicting Interests, Social Justice and Proxy Consent to Research.Daryl Pullman - 2002 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):523 – 545.
A Compassionate Autonomy Alternative to Speciesism.Constance K. Perry - 2001 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (3):237-246.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-03-10

Total views
70 ( #151,584 of 2,445,397 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #310,973 of 2,445,397 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes