Bioethics 27 (2):105-116 (2013)
AbstractWhat I call ‘the standard view’ claims that IRBs should not regard financial payment as a benefit to subjects for the purpose of risk/benefit assessment. Although the standard view is universally accepted, there is little defense of that view in the canonical documents of research ethics or the scholarly literature. This paper claims that insofar as IRBs should be concerned with the interests and autonomy of research subjects, they should reject the standard view and adopt ‘the incorporation view.’ The incorporation view is more consistent with the underlying soft-paternalist justification for risk-benefit assessment and demonstrates respect for the autonomy of prospective subjects. Adoption of the standard view precludes protocols that advance the interests of subjects, investigators, and society. After considering several objections to the argument, I consider several arguments for the standard view that do not appeal to the interests and autonomy of research subjects
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
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.
Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection.Katherine Witte Saylor & Douglas MacKay - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (2):5-19.
Paying People to Risk Life or Limb.Robert C. Hughes - 2019 - Business Ethics Quarterly 29 (3):295-316.
The Social Value Requirement in Research: From the Transactional to the Basic Structure Model of Stakeholder Obligations.Danielle M. Wenner - 2018 - Hastings Center Report 48 (6):25-32.
For Love and Money: The Need to Rethink Benefits in HIV Cure Studies.Emily Largent - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (2):96-99.
Similar books and articles
Non-Beneficial Pediatric Research and the Best Interests Standard: A Legal and Ethical Reconciliation.Paul Litton - unknown
Making Risk-Benefit Assessments of Medical Research Protocols.Alex Rajczi - 2004 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (2):338-348.
Conflicting Interests, Social Justice and Proxy Consent to Research.Daryl Pullman - 2002 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):523 – 545.
Does Informed Consent to Research Require Comprehension?Gopal Sreenivasan - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:85-93.
Justifying Community Benefit Requirements in International Research.Robert C. Hughes - 2014 - Bioethics 28 (8):397-404.
Challenging Research on Human Subjects: Justice and Uncompensated Harms.Stephen Napier - 2013 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):29-51.
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.
Risk-Benefit Analysis: From a Logical Point of View. [REVIEW]Georg Spielthenner - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (2):161-170.
Protecting Subjects Who Cannot Give Consent: Toward a Better Standard for "Minimal" Risks.David Wendler - 2005 - Hastings Center Report 35 (5):37-43.
Ethical Aspects of Vulnerability in Research.Elisabeth Weisser-Lohmann - 2012 - Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):157-162.
Does It Matter Whether Investigators Intend to Benefit Research Subjects?David Wendler & Emily Abdoler - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):353-370.