Switch to: References

Citations of:

Is payment a benefit?

Bioethics 27 (2):105-116 (2011)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Equitable Access to Human Biological Resources in Developing Countries: Benefit Sharing Without Undue Inducement.Roger Scarlin Chennells - 2015 - Cham: Imprint: Springer.
    The main question explored by the book is: How can cross-border access to human genetic resources, such as blood or DNA samples, be governed in such a way as to achieve equity for vulnerable populations in developing countries? The book situates the field of genomic and genetic research within global health and research frameworks, describing the concerns that have been raised about the potential unfairness in exchanges during recent decades. Access to and sharing in the benefits of human biological resources (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection.Katherine Witte Saylor & Douglas MacKay - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (2):5-19.
    Although the principle of fair subject selection is a widely recognized requirement of ethical clinical research, it often yields conflicting imperatives, thus raising major ethical dilemmas regarding participant selection. In this paper, we diagnose the source of this problem, arguing that the principle of fair subject selection is best understood as a bundle of four distinct sub-principles, each with normative force and each yielding distinct imperatives: (1) fair inclusion; (2) fair burden sharing; (3) fair opportunity; and (4) fair distribution of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • How Payment For Research Participation Can Be Coercive.Joseph Millum & Michael Garnett - 2019 - American Journal of Bioethics 19 (9):21-31.
    The 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, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • Paying People to Risk Life or Limb.Robert C. Hughes - 2019 - Business Ethics Quarterly 29 (3):295-316.
    Does the content of a physically dangerous job affect the moral permissibility of hiring for that job? To what extent may employers consider costs in choosing workplace safety measures? Drawing on Kantian ethical theory, this article defends two strong ethical standards of workplace safety. First, the content of a hazardous job does indeed affect the moral permissibility of offering it. Unless employees need hazard pay to meet basic needs, it is permissible to offer a dangerous job only if prospective employees (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Exploitation and International Clinical Research: The Disconnect Between Goals and Policy.Danielle M. Wenner - 2018 - In David Boonin (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of Philosophy and Public Policy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 563-574.
    A growing proportion of clinical research funded by pharmaceutical companies, high-income country research agencies, and not-for-profit funders is conducted in low- and middle-income settings. Disparities in wealth and access to healthcare between the populations where new interventions are often tested and those where many of them are ultimately marketed raise concerns about exploitation. This chapter examines several ethical requirements frequently advanced as mechanisms for protecting research subjects in underserved communities from exploitation and evaluates the effectiveness of those mechanisms as responses (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research?Tessa I. van Rijssel, Ghislaine J. M. W. van Thiel, Helga Gardarsdottir, Johannes J. M. van Delden & on Behalf of the Trials@Home Consortium - forthcoming - American Journal of Bioethics:1-11.
    Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Shared Vulnerabilities in Research.Eric Chwang - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (12):3-11.
    The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations governing federally funded research on human subjects assumes that harmful research is sometimes morally justifiable because the beneficiaries of that research share a particular vulnerability with its subjects. In this article, I argue against this assumption, which occurs in every subpart of the Code of Federal Regulations that deals with specific vulnerable populations . I argue that shared vulnerability is no exception to the general principle that harming one person in order to benefit another (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Joanna Różyńska - 2022 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 25 (3):449-464.
    In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of—more or less well-justified—ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have aprima faciemoral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Participants’ awareness of ethical compliance, safety and protection during participation in pharmaceutical industry clinical trials: a controlled survey.Gerardo González-Saldivar, René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, Jose Luis Viramontes-Madrid, Alejandro Salcido-Montenegro, Neri Alejandro Álvarez-Villalobos, Victoria González-Nava & José Gerardo González-González - 2019 - BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):2.
    The rapid increase of industry-sponsored clinical research towards developing countries has led to potentially complex ethical issues to assess. There is scarce evidence about the perception of these participants about the ethical compliance, security, and protection. We sought to evaluate and contrast the awareness and perception of participants and non-participants of industry-sponsored research trials on ethical, safety, and protection topics. A Cases-control survey conducted at twelve research sites in México. Previous and current participants of ISRT as well as non-participants with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies.Emily Largent - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (2):96-99.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Shining a Light also Casts a Shadow: Neuroimaging Incidental Findings in Neuromarketing Research.Owen M. Bradfield - 2021 - Neuroethics 14 (3):459-465.
    Rapid growth in structural and functional brain research has led to increasing ethical discussion of what to do about incidental findings within the brains of healthy neuroimaging research participants that have potential health importance, but which are beyond the original aims of the study. This dilemma has been widely debated with respect to general neuroimaging research but has attracted little attention in the context of neuromarketing studies. In this paper, I argue that neuromarketing researchers owe participants the same ethical obligations (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • 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.
    It has long been taken for granted that clinical research involving human subjects is ethical only if it holds out the prospect of producing socially valuable knowledge. Recently, this social value requirement has come under scrutiny, with prominent ethicists arguing that the social value requirement cannot be substantiated as an ethical limit on clinical research, and others attempting to offer new support. In this paper, I argue that both criticisms and existing defenses of the social value requirement are predicated on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • A few remarks on limits of research risks and research payments.Joanna Różyńska - 2023 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 26 (1):155-156.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Risky first-in-human clinical trials on medically fragile persons: owning the moral cost.Christopher Bobier - forthcoming - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics:1-13.
    The purpose of a first-in-human (FIH) clinical trial is to gather information about how the drug or device affects and interacts with the human body: its safety, side effects, and (potential) dosage. As such, the primary goal of a FIH trial is not participant benefit but to gain knowledge of drug or device efficacy, i.e., baseline human safety knowledge. Some FIH clinical trials carry _significant_ foreseeable risk to participants with little to no foreseeable participant benefit. Participation in such trials would (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark