Article Text
Abstract
The US federal research regulations prohibit informed consent, whether written or oral, from including provisions in which human subjects waive or appear to waive legal rights. We argue that policies that prevent human subjects from waiving legal rights in research can be ethically justified under the rationale of group, soft paternalism. These policies protect competent adults from making adverse decisions about health and legal matters that they may not understand fully. However, this rationale is less defensible if there is a comprehensive compensation for injury programme available in which subjects are asked to waive some legal rights in order to participate in the programme. In this situation, subjects should be allowed to waive some legal rights to obtain the benefits of the programme.
- Informed Consent
- Legal Aspects
- Research Ethics
- Tort Law
- Paternalism
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Review of policies for injuries to research participants in India
- In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants
- Appropriateness of no-fault compensation for research-related injuries from an African perspective: an appeal for action by African countries
- Is clinician refusal to treat an emerging problem in injury compensation systems?
- Associations between compensable injury, perceived fault and pain and disability 1 year after injury: a registry-based Australian cohort study
- Regulation of biomedical research in Africa
- Regulating international clinical research: an ethical framework for policy-makers
- Obesity, paternalism and fairness
- Understanding compensable and non-compensable patient profiles, pathways and physical outcomes for transport and work-related injuries in Queensland, Australia through data linkage
- Developing ethics guidance for HIV prevention research: the HIV Prevention Trials Network approach