Our starting point in this article is the debate between John Harris and Iain Brassington on whether or not there is a duty to take part in scientific research. We consider the arguments that have been put forward based on fairness and a duty to rescue, and suggest an alternative justification grounded in a hypothetical agreement: that is, because effective healthcare cannot be taken for granted, but requires continuous medical research, and nobody knows what kind of healthcare they will need, participating in research should be viewed from the perspective of a social contract, based on our mutual need for medical advances.
- Research Ethics
- Public Policy
- Scientific Research
- Informed Consent
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.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The 2008 Declaration of Helsinki: some reflections
- Towards a national genomics medicine service: the challenges facing clinical-research hybrid practices and the case of the 100 000 genomes project
- Scientific research is a moral duty
- Participation in biomedical research is an imperfect moral duty: a response to John Harris
- ‘Healthcare Heroes’: problems with media focus on heroism from healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Payment for participation in research: a pursuit for the poor?
- Ethics and governance of global health inequalities
- Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research?
- Biobank research: who benefits from individual consent?
- An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research