How Payment for Research Participation Can Be Coercive.

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 coercio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:American Journal of Bioethics Vol. 19; no. 9; pp. 21 - 32
Autores principales: Millum, Joseph, Garnett, Michael
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Taylor & Francis Ltd Sep2019
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=138105546&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 138105546
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        15265161
        FKZ
      jtl: American Journal of Bioethics
      issn: 15265161
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2019
      vid: 19
      iid: 9
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
      place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        138105546
        10.1080/15265161.2019.1630497
        138105546
      ppf: 21
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: How Payment for Research Participation Can Be Coercive.
      aug:
        au:
          Millum, Joseph
          Garnett, Michael
        affil: National Institutes of Health
      sug:
        subj:
          Coercion
          Research Subjects
          Research Ethics
          Consent (Research)
          Bioethics
          Researcher-Subject Relations
          Rate Setting and Review
          Fees and Charges
          Contracts
      ab: 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, coercion as subjection indicates a way in which someone's interests can be partially set back in virtue of being subject to another's foreign will. While offers of payment do not normally constitute consent-undermining coercion, they do sometimes constitute coercion as subjection. We offer an analysis of coercion as subjection and propose three possible practical responses to worries about the coerciveness of payment.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N