Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. 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   30 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  
  • Ethics in human subjects research: Do incentives matter?Ruth W. Grant & Jeremy Sugarman - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (6):717 – 738.
    There is considerable confusion regarding the ethical appropriateness of using incentives in research with human subjects. Previous work on determining whether incentives are unethical considers them as a form of undue influence or coercive offer. We understand the ethical issue of undue influence as an issue, not of coercion, but of corruption of judgment. By doing so we find that, for the most part, the use of incentives to recruit and retain research subjects is innocuous. But there are some instances (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   32 citations  
  • Moral Gridlock: Conceptual Barriers to No-Fault Compensation for Injured Research Subjects.Leslie Meltzer Henry - 2013 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (2):411-423.
    The federal regulations that govern biomedical research, most notably those enshrined in the Common Rule, are a product of their time. Born in the aftermath of wartime atrocities committed by Nazi doctors, and influenced by domestic research scandals like the Willowbrook and Tuskegee studies, the regulations express a protectionist ethos aimed at safeguarding subjects of human experimentation from the potential harms of research participation. Requirements for informed consent, risk minimization, equitable subject selection, and peer review of proposed research rest on (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • An ethical framework for the practice of paying research subjects.Terrence F. Ackerman - 1988 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 11 (4):1-4.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):389-392.
    Payment for research participation has raised ethical concerns, especially with respect to its potential for coercion. We argue that characterising payment for research participation as coercive is misguided, because offers of benefit cannot constitute coercion. In this article we analyse the concept of coercion, refute mistaken conceptions of coercion and explain why the offer of payment for research participation is never coercive but in some cases may produce undue inducement.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   54 citations  
  • Money, Advertising and Seduction in Human Subjects Research.Trisha B. Phillips - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (2):88-90.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Apomediated World: Regulating Research When Social Media Has Changed Research.Dan O’Connor - 2013 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (2):470-483.
    Social media, meaning digital technologies and platforms such as blogs, wikis, forums, content aggregators, sharing sites, and social networks like Facebook and Twitter, have profoundly changed the way that information can be shared online. Now, almost anyone with a broadband internet connection or a smart phone can share ideas, data, and opinions with just about anyone else on the planet. This change has serious implications for the way in which human subjects research can be conducted and, concomitantly, for the ways (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process.J. P. Bentley - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (3):293-298.
    Objectives: To determine the effects of risk and payment on subjects’ willingness to participate, and to examine how payment influences subjects’ potential behaviours and risk evaluations.Methods: A 3 × 3 , between subjects, completely randomised factorial design was used. Students enrolled at one of five US pharmacy schools read a recruitment notice and informed consent form for a hypothetical study, and completed a questionnaire. Risk level was manipulated using recruitment notices and informed consent documents from hypothetical biomedical research projects. Payment (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   46 citations