RESEARCH ETHICS

Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research?

H M Evans

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor H M Evans
CAHHM, University of Durham, 14/15 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP, UK; h.m.evans{at}durham.ac.uk

Patients participating in the shared benefits of publicly funded health care enjoy the benefits of treatments tested on previous patients. Future patients similarly depend on treatments tested on present patients. Since properly designed research assumes that the treatments being studied are—so far as is known at the outset—equivalent in therapeutic value, no one is clinically disadvantaged merely by taking part in research, provided the research involves administering active treatments to all participants. This paper argues that, because no other practical or moral considerations count decisively against so doing, we could and should oblige patients to agree to receive indicated treatment within the terms of any concurrent research protocols. This ensures their treatment will benefit not only themselves but also future patients through contributing to new knowledge. By analogy with the paying of income tax, patients should not be allowed to "veto" their social responsibility to take part in clinical research.

Keywords: clinical research; consent; equipoise; research subjects; veto

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Ives, J., Draper, H., Damery, S., Wilson, S. (2009). Do family doctors have an obligation to facilitate research?. Fam Pract 0: cmp045v1-cmp045 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Schaefer, G. O., Emanuel, E. J., Wertheimer, A. (2009). The Obligation to Participate in Biomedical Research. JAMA 302: 67-72 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Treasure, T. (2008). Pulmonary metastasectomy for colorectal cancer: weak evidence and no randomised trials. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 33: 300-302 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Evans, H M (2007). Do patients have duties?. J. Med. Ethics 33: 689-694 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Godlee, F. (2006). Rite of passage. BMJ 333: - [Full Text]  
• Perna, M A (2006). "Fair's fair argument" and voluntarism in clinical research: But, is it fair?. J. Med. Ethics 32: 478-482 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Harris, J. (2005). Scientific research is a moral duty. J. Med. Ethics 31: 242-248 [Full Text]