title: Challenging research on human subjects: justice and uncompensated harms.
abstract: Ethical challenges to certain aspects of research on human subjects are not uncommon; examples include challenges to first-in-human trials (Chapman in J Clin Res Bioethics 2(4):1-8, 2011), certain placebo controlled trials (Anderson in J Med Philos 31:65-81, 2006; Anderson and Kimmelman in Kennedy Inst Ethics J 20(1):75-98, 2010) and "sham" surgery (Macklin in N Engl J Med 341:992-996, 1999). To date, however, there are few challenges to research when the subjects are competent and the research is more than minimal risk with no promise of direct benefit. The principal reason given for allowing research that is more than minimal risk without benefit is that we should respect the autonomy of competent subjects. I argue that though the moral intuitions informing respect for autonomy are sound, there is another set of intuitions regarding what we take to be just treatment of another when one agent knowingly causes or allows suffering on another agent. I argue that concerns generated by commutative justice serve as limitations on permissible research. I highlight our intuitions informing this notion of justice by appealing to work done on theodicy; what counts as a morally sufficient reason for God to allow suffering in humans is applicable also to the researcher-subject relationship. I conclude that all human subjects who are exposed to more than minimal risk research should enjoy the same actual protections (e.g., subpart D) as those given subjects who cannot consent.
authors: Department of Philosophy, Villanova University, SAC 108, 800 Lancaster Ave., Villanova, PA 19085, USA. stephen.napier@villanova.edu
authors: Stephen
authors: S
authors: Napier
mesh_terms: D032984:Ethics, Research; D006805:Human Experimentation / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D012107:Research Design; D035842:Research Subjects; D035844:Researcher-Subject Relations / Q000941:ethics*; D012935:Social Justice
references: J Med Ethics. 2009 Jul;35(7):445-9
references: 19567696
references: Hastings Cent Rep. 2007 May-Jun;37(3):24-34
references: 17649900
references: Code Fed Regul Shipping. 1982 Oct 1;Part 46, Sections 46.101 to 46.306:Unknown
references: 11660819
references: J Law Med Ethics. 2009 Spring;37(1):6-11
references: 19245597
references: J Law Med Ethics. 2000 Winter;28(4):332-43
references: 11317426
references: J Med Ethics. 2005 Apr;31(4):205-8
references: 15800360
references: JAMA. 2011 Feb 16;305(7):711-2
references: 21325189
references: Nat Med. 2004 Jun;10(6):570-3
references: 15170195
references: J Med Philos. 2006 Feb;31(1):65-81
references: 16464770
references: JAMA. 2011 Mar 23;305(12):1236-7
references: 21406636
references: Hastings Cent Rep. 1987 Apr;17(2):20-4
references: 3294743
references: JAMA. 2005 Aug 17;294(7):826-32
references: 16106008
references: JAMA. 2000 May 24-31;283(20):2701-11
references: 10819955
references: Lancet. 2007 Dec 1;370(9602):1875-7
references: 17959239
references: Theor Med Bioeth. 2012 Apr;33(2):137-49
references: 22198413
references: Harv Bus Rev. 2011 Apr;89(4):58-65, 137
references: 21510519
references: Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2010 Mar;20(1):75-98
references: 20506695
references: Am J Bioeth. 2007 Feb;7(2):76-81
references: 17366206
references: N Engl J Med. 1999 Sep 23;341(13):992-6
references: 10498498
references: Bioethics. 2012 Feb;26(2):60-7
references: 20497168
references: Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 Sep-Oct;35(5):37-43
references: 16295263
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1135:287-95
references: 18574235
references: J Med Ethics. 1995 Apr;21(2):91-6
references: 7608947
references: Theor Med Bioeth. 2011 Jun;32(3):161-80
references: 21400219
references: Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 Nov;63(11):1085-94
references: 17891536