Making Risk-Benefit Assessments of Medical Research Protocols

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (2):338-348 (2004)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
An axiom of medical research ethics is that a protocol is moral only if it has a “favorable risk-benefit ratio”. This axiom is usually interpreted in the following way: a medical research protocol is moral only if it has a positive expected value -- that is, if it is likely to do more good (to both subjects and society) than harm. I argue that, thus interpreted, the axiom has two problems. First, it is unusable, because it requires us to know more about the potential outcomes of research than we ever could. Second, it is false, because it conflicts with the so-called “soft paternalist” principles of liberal democracy. In place of this flawed rule I propose a new way of making risk-benefit assessments, one that does comport with the principles of liberalism. I argue that a protocol is moral only if it would be entered into by competent subjects who are informed about the protocol. The new rule this eschews all pseudo-utilitarian calculation about the protocol’s likely harms and benefits.
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2016-02-24
Latest version: 1 (2016-02-24)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
331 ( #21,066 of 65,655 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #56,074 of 65,655 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.