Affiliation:
1. Science Policy and Ethics Studies Unit, RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology, 2–2–3 Minatojima Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 650–0047, Japan.
Abstract
Funding support for clinical research is traditionally obtained from any of several sources, including government agencies, industry, not-for-profit foundations, philanthropies and charitable and advocacy organizations. In recent history, there have also been a limited number of cases in which clinical research programs were established in which funding was provided directly by patients in turn for the ability to participate as nonrandomized subjects. This approach to clinical research funding, which I refer to here as the ‘pay-to-participate’ model, has been both criticized and rationalized on ethical grounds, with reference to its implications for issues, including equipoise, therapeutic misconception, justice, autonomy and risk–benefit balance. Discussion of the scientific implications of this funding scheme, however, has been more limited. I will briefly review the history of the pay-to-participate model in the context of experimental cell and tissue treatments to date and highlight the many ethical and, particularly, scientific challenges that unavoidably confound this approach to the funding and conduct of clinical research.
Subject
Embryology,Biomedical Engineering
Reference39 articles.
1. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki
2. No authors listed.The Belmont Report – Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Goverment Printing Office, DC, USA (1979).
3. Food and Drug Administration.Treatment Use of Investigational Drugs – Information Sheet. August 9 2011.
4. Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit decision (2007).
Cited by
28 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献