Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Heterogeneity in IRB Policies with Regard to Disclosures about Payment for Participation in Recruitment Materials.Megan S. Wright & Christopher T. Robertson - 2014 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 42 (3):375-382.
    The payment of human subjects is an area where Institutional Review Boards have wide discretion. Although the “Common Rule” requires the provision of full information to human research participants to secure valid consent, the Rule is silent on the issue of payment. Still, some federal agencies offer guidance on the matter. For example, the National Science Foundation cautions that high payments for risky research “may induce a needy participant to take a risk that they normally would prefer not to take.” (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Acoustic Separation and Biomedical Research: Lessons from Indian Regulation of Compensation for Research Injury.Megan E. Larkin - 2015 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (1):105-115.
    In early 2013, the Indian government introduced new rules governing the conduct of clinical trials involving human participants. Among other provisions, the law requires that sponsors of research compensate participants who are injured during the course of their research participation. This article examines the effects of India's compensation law and the efforts that policymakers in India have made to tailor the law since its passage. I use the legal concept of acoustic separation as a framework to explain and justify the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Appropriateness of no-fault compensation for research-related injuries from an African perspective: an appeal for action by African countries: Table 1.Patrick Dongosolo Kamalo, Lucinda Manda-Taylor & Stuart Rennie - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (8):528-533.
    Compensation for research-related injuries (RRIs) remains a challenge in the current environment of global collaborative biomedical research as exemplified by the continued reluctance of the US government, a major player in international biomedical research, to enact regulation for mandatory compensation for RRIs. This stance is in stark contrast to the mandatory compensation policies adopted by other democracies like the European Union (EU) countries. These positions taken by the USA and the EU create a nexus of confusion when research is exported (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Quest for Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the United States: A New Proposal.Carolyn Riley Chapman, Sangita Sukumaran, Geremew Tarekegne Tsegaye, Yelena Shevchenko & Arthur L. Caplan - 2019 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 47 (4):732-747.
    In the U.S., there is no requirement for research sponsors to compensate human research subjects who experience injuries as a result of their participation. In this article, we review the moral justifications that compel the establishment of a better research-related injury compensation system. We explore how other countries and certain institutions within the U.S. have adopted various systems of compensation. The existence of these systems demonstrates both that the U.S. lags behind other nations in its protection of human research subjects (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations