This series of articles argues for a different relationship between investigators and subjects of clinical research based on partnership in shared aims and recognition, by each, of their duties within this partnership. This second essay describes how those duties arise and explores the basis on which, and by and to whom, they are owed. The conclusion that patients have duties in research raises a number of moral issues which, ultimately, question the concept of consent. Discussion of these will be continued (...) in future articles. (shrink)

If patients are to be partners rather than subjects, contributing effectively to clinical research in which they have an interest, both they and investigators must change their ways. The case is argued here that the conduct of clinical research fulfils an essential need of society and that, therefore, in the interests of society, there is a moral imperative that it be done. Further essays will develop this theme, questioning along the way whether consent is a redundant concept.

The author considers that some of the reasonings used by both the American and English courts against recognising a wrongful life claim are far from persuasive. However, there may indeed be strong public policy reasons against judicial recognition of such a claim. If judicial remedy is not possible for children in wrongful life situations, society ought to assist them in the alleviation of some of the practical problems caused by deformities.