The permissibility of nudging in public policy is often assessed in terms of the conditions of transparency, rationality, and easy resistibility. This debate has produced important resources for any ethical inquiry into nudging, but it has also failed to focus sufficiently on a different yet very important question, namely: when do nudges undermine a patient’s voluntary consent to a medical procedure? In this paper, I take on this further question and, more precisely, I ask to which extent the three conditions (...) of transparency, rationality, and easy resistibility can be applied to the assessment of voluntary consent too. After presenting two examples, designed to put pressure on these three conditions, I show that, suitably modified, the three conditions can remain significant in the assessment of voluntary consent as well. However, the needed modifications are very substantial and result in a rather complicated view. To propose a tidier solution, I argue that nudging undermines voluntary consent if and only if it cannot be ‘interpersonally justified’ to the patient. I use the three modified conditions to motivate the idea of interpersonal justification and also to further specify the principles it involves. My resulting view is especially attractive because it builds on already existing insights from the debate on nudging, updates those insights with an eye to medical consent, and finally unites them in an elegant and simple framework. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 10, October 2020, Page 96-98.

Surveys of almost 1,500 members of three professional societies that do risk analysis found that 3 in 10 respondents had observed a biased research design, 2 in 10 had observed plagiarism, and 1 in 10 observed data fabrication or falsification. Respondents with many years in risk analysis, business consultants, and industrial hygienists reported the greatest prevalence of misconduct. These respondents perceived poor science, economic implications of the research, and lack of training in ethics as causes of misconduct. They supported the (...) teaching of ethics but the vast majority did not support government auditing of their work. (shrink)

It is universally accepted that informed consent to participate in medical research should be given by subjects. People have the fundamental human right to freely choose, without coercion or withholding of information necessary to make a reasonable choice, whether they will undergo any risks associated with a research project. United States researchers have known for some time that they have the duty to inform potential subjects of the nature of proposed research and the risks and possible benefits, and to seek (...) consent. Investigators also have the duty to design the research so that it will be scientifically valid while minimizing foreseeable and avoidable harms. (shrink)