Concepts such as ‘coercion’ and ‘inducement’ are often used within bioethics without much reflection upon what they mean. This is particularly so in research ethics where they are assumed to imply that payment for research participation is unethical. Wertheimer and Miller advance our thinking about these concepts and research ethics in a significant way, specifically by questioning the possibility of genuine offers ever being coercive. This commentary argues that they are right to question this assumption, however, more needs to be said about the plausible coercive offer cases and to explain the normativity of these cases.
- Informed consent
- research on special populations
- social control of human experimentation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Developing an ethics framework for living donor transplantation
- Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?
- Scientific research is a moral duty
- The kindest cut? Surgical castration, sex offenders and coercive offers
- Payment for participation in research: a pursuit for the poor?
- Reification and assent in research involving those who lack capacity
- Vulnerability of pregnant women in clinical research
- Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK
- Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model
- Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy