Bioethics 27 (2):105-116 (2013)

Authors
Abstract
What 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
Keywords risk/benefit assessment  payment  autonomy  paternalism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01892.x
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: 63,110
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How Payment For Research Participation Can Be Coercive.Joseph Millum & Michael Garnett - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (9):21-31.
Paying People to Risk Life or Limb.Robert C. Hughes - 2019 - Business Ethics Quarterly 29 (3):295-316.
Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection.Katherine Witte Saylor & Douglas MacKay - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (2):5-19.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

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.
Challenging Research on Human Subjects: Justice and Uncompensated Harms.Stephen Napier - 2013 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):29-51.
Risk-Benefit Analysis: From a Logical Point of View. [REVIEW]Georg Spielthenner - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (2):161-170.
External Justifications and Institutional Roles.A. John Simmons - 1996 - Journal of Philosophy 93 (1):28-36.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-07-05

Total views
28 ( #389,536 of 2,448,087 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #451,143 of 2,448,087 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes