Healthy Skepticism Library item: 5432
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: Journal Article
Edwards SJ.
Restricted treatments, inducements, and research participation.
Bioethics 2006 Apr 01; 20:(2):77-91
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2006.00479.x
Abstract:
In this paper, I support the claim that placing certain restrictions on public access to possible new treatments is morally problematic under some exceptional circumstances. Very ill patients may find that all available standard treatments are unacceptable, either because they are ineffective or have serious adverse effects, and these patients may understandably be desperate to try something new even if this means stepping into the unknown. Faced with certain death, it is rational to want to try something new and to chance a dire outcome. Restricting possible new treatments to research trials may put these treatments scientifically, geographically or economically out of reach of these patients. For those who can get access, research restrictions could weaken, though not necessarily eliminate, the value of consent participants of such trials are able to give. Some participants may therefore be exploited for scientific purposes in the name of public interest. There are nonetheless compelling reasons for keeping some restrictive regulation in this area.
Keywords:
Clinical Trials/ethics*
Coercion*
Double Effect
Drug Approval
Drug Industry
Drugs, Investigational/economics
Drugs, Investigational/supply & distribution*
Ethical Analysis*
Freedom
Government Regulation
Health Services Accessibility/economics
Health Services Accessibility/ethics
Human Experimentation/ethics
Humans
Informed Consent
Insurance Coverage
Internationality
Motivation*
Paternalism/ethics*
Patients
Philosophy
Research Subjects*
Risk Assessment
Social Justice
Vulnerable Populations
