Abstract
AbstractIn their recent paper, Al and colleagues (Trials 2023;24:233) argue that manipulation of the methods of recruitment using well-known techniques in order to increase enrollment can be ethically acceptable. This brief response challenges that notion as an affront to voluntariness and a devolution of the ethics of human subjects research to the “ethics” of the marketplace.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference8 articles.
1. Al P, Hey S, Weijer C, Gillies K, McCleary N, Yee ML, Inglis J, et al. Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis. Trials. 2023;24:233. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07258-4.
2. Baker FX, Merz JF. What gives them the right? legal privilege and waivers of consent for research. Clin Trials. 2018;15:579–86.
3. Nelson RM, Merz JF. Voluntariness of consent for research: an empirical and conceptual review. Med Care. 2002;40(Suppl):V69–80.
4. Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Klitzman R. Voluntariness of consent to research: a conceptual model. Hastings Cent Rep. 2009;39:30–9.
5. Stanley J. How propaganda works. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. Press; 2015.
Cited by
1 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
1. Response to Merz;Trials;2023-10-06