Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (1 other version)The Right to Withdraw from Research.G. Owen Schaefer & Alan Wertheimer - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):329-352.
    The right to withdraw from participation in research is recognized in virtually all national and international guidelines for research on human subjects. It is therefore surprising that there has been little justification for that right in the literature. We argue that the right to withdraw should protect research participants from information imbalance, inability to hedge, inherent uncertainty, and untoward bodily invasion, and it serves to bolster public trust in the research enterprise. Although this argument is not radical, it provides a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • (1 other version)The right to withdraw from research.G. Owen Schaefer Alan Wertheimer - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):329-352.
    The right to withdraw from participation in research is recognized in virtually all national and international guidelines for research on human subjects. It is therefore surprising that there has been little justification for that right in the literature. We argue that the right to withdraw should protect research participants from information imbalance, inability to hedge, inherent uncertainty, and untoward bodily invasion, and it serves to bolster public trust in the research enterprise. Although this argument is not radical, it provides a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • When clinical trials compete: prioritising study recruitment.Luke Gelinas, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Barbara E. Bierer & I. Glenn Cohen - 2017 - Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (12):803-809.
    It is not uncommon for multiple clinical trials at the same institution to recruit concurrently from the same patient population. When the relevant pool of patients is limited, as it often is, trials essentially compete for participants. There is evidence that such a competition is a predictor of low study accrual, with increased competition tied to increased recruitment shortfalls. But there is no consensus on what steps, if any, institutions should take to approach this issue. In this article, we argue (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Increasing the amount of payment to research subjects.D. B. Resnick - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9):e14-e14.
    This article discusses some ethical issues that can arise when researchers decide to increase the amount of payment offered to research subjects to boost enrollment. Would increasing the amount of payment be unfair to subjects who have already consented to participate in the study? This article considers how five different models of payment—the free market model, the wage payment model, the reimbursement model, the appreciation model, and the fair benefits model—would approach this issue. The article also considers several practical problems (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Should All Research Subjects Be Treated the Same?Baruch Brody, Stephen A. Migueles & David Wendler - 2015 - Hastings Center Report 45 (1):17-20.
    One of the founding principles of research ethics is that subjects should be treated equally. In the words of the Belmont Report, “equals ought to be treated equally.” This principle does not imply that all subjects should be treated exactly the same. Rather, subjects who are similar in relevant respects should receive similar treatment. Clinical status is clearly relevant to determining how subjects should be treated. Greater resources should be devoted to subjects who have worse diseases. In contrast, fame is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation