Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. 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  
  • Coercion: The Wrong and the Bad.Michael Garnett - 2018 - Ethics 128 (3):545-573.
    The idea of coercion is one that has played, and continues to play, at least two importantly distinct moral-theoretic roles in our thinking. One, which has been the focus of a number of recent influential treatments, is a primarily deontic role in which claims of coercion serve to indicate relatively weighty prima facie wrongs and excuses. The other, by contrast, is a primarily axiological or eudaimonic role in which claims of coercion serve to pick out instances of some distinctive kind (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Money, coercion, and undue inducement: attitudes about payments to research participants.E. A. Largent, C. Grady, F. G. Miller & A. Wertheimer - 2012 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 34 (1):1-8.
    Using payment to recruit research subjects is a common practice, but it raises ethical concerns that coercion or undue inducement could potentially compromise participants’ informed consent. This is the first national study to explore the attitudes of IRB members and other human subjects protection professionals concerning whether payment of research participants constitutes coercion or undue influence, and if so, why. The majority of respondents expressed concern that payment of any amount might influence a participant’s decisions or behaviors regarding research participation. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • Rethinking the ethics of clinical research: widening the lens.Alan Wertheimer - 2011 - New York: Oxford University Press.
    Introduction -- Facing up to paternalism in research ethics -- Preface to a theory of consent transactions in research : beyond valid consent -- Should we worry about money? -- Exploitation in clinical research -- The interaction principle.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  • Coercive wage offers.David Zimmerman - 1981 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (2):121-145.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • Misconceptions about coercion and undue influence: Reflections on the views of irb members.Emily Largent, Christine Grady, Franklin G. Miller & Alan Wertheimer - 2012 - Bioethics 27 (9):500-507.
    Payment to recruit research subjects is a common practice but raises ethical concerns relating to the potential for coercion or undue influence. We conducted the first national study of IRB members and human subjects protection professionals to explore attitudes as to whether and why payment of research participants constitutes coercion or undue influence. Upon critical evaluation of the cogency of ethical concerns regarding payment, as reflected in our survey results, we found expansive or inconsistent views about coercion and undue influence (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations