Assessing the Remedy: The Case for Contracts in Clinical Trials

American Journal of Bioethics 11 (4):3-12 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Current orthodoxy in research ethics assumes that subjects of clinical trials reserve rights to withdraw at any time and without giving any reason. This view sees the right to withdraw as a simple extension of the right to refuse to participate all together. In this paper, however, I suggest that subjects should assume some responsibilities for the internal validity of the trial at consent and that these responsibilities should be captured by contract. This would allow the researcher to impose a penalty on the subject if he were to withdraw without good reason and on a whim. This proposal still leaves open the possibility of withdrawing without penalty when it is in the subject's best interests to do so. Giving researchers recourse to legal remedy may now be necessary to protect the science, as existing methods used to increase retention are inadequate for one reason or another

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-04-09

Downloads
108 (#456,772)

6 months
22 (#466,507)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sarah Edwards
State University of New York, Buffalo

References found in this work

Reasons and Persons.Joseph Margolis - 1984 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice.Franklin Miller & Alan Wertheimer (eds.) - 2010 - New York, US: Oxford University Press.
Collective responsibility.Jan Narveson - 2002 - The Journal of Ethics 6 (2):179-198.
Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?A. Wertheimer & F. G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):389-392.

View all 25 references / Add more references