American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):3-4 (2008)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Because of the important benefits that biomedical research offers to humans, some have argued that people have a general moral obligation to participate in research. Although the defense of such a putative moral duty has raised controversy, few scholars, on either side of the debate, have attended to the social context in which research takes place and where such an obligation will be discharged. By reflecting on the social context in which a presumed duty to participate in research will obtain, this article shows that decontextualized discussions of this putative moral obligation are problematic.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1080/15265160802519462 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
In Defense of the Duty to Participate in Biomedical Research.Rosamond Rhodes - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):37 – 38.
A Duty to Participate in Research: Does Social Context Matter?Inmaculada de Melo-Martín - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):28-36.
Correcting Social Ills Through Mandatory Research Participation.Anita Ho - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):39 – 40.
Participation in Research and Social Context: The Case of Population-Based Cancer Registration, Surveillance, and Research.Robert H. McLaughlin - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):41 – 42.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
A Duty to Participate in Research: Does Social Context Matter?Inmaculada de Melo-Mart - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):28 – 36.
A Duty to Participate in Research: Does Social Context Matter?Inmaculada de Melo-Martín - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):28-36.
An Unbiased Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Does Consent Bias Research?”.Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (4):W1 - W4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Duty to Deceive: Placebos in Clinical Practice”.Bennett Foddy - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (12):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "A Kantian Moral Duty for the Soon to Be Demented to Commit Suicide".Dennis R. Cooley - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Research 2.0: Social Networking and Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomics”.Sandra Soo-Jin Lee & LaVera Crawley - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (6-7):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Withdrawal of Nonfutile Life Support After Attempted Suicide”.Samuel M. Brown, C. Gregory Elliott & Robert Paine - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics: 13 (3):W3 - W5.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Must Research Participants Understand Randomization?”.David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):W1 – W2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “How to Do Research Fairly in an Unjust World”.Angela J. Ballantyne - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (6):4-6.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Social Contexts Influence Ethical Considerations of Research”.Robert J. Levine, Judith B. Gordon, Carolyn M. Mazure, Philip E. Rubin, Barry R. Schaller & John L. Young - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (5):W1-W2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Justifying a Presumption of Restraint in Animal Biotechnology Research”.Autumn Fiester - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (6):W1 – W2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Ethos and Ethics of Translational Research”.Jason Scott Robert, Mary Sunderland, Rachel A. Ankeny & Jane Maienschein - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (3):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Bioethical Considerations in Translational Research: Primate Stroke”.Michael E. Sughrue, J. Mocco, Willam J. Mack, Andrew F. Ducruet, Ricardo J. Komotar, Ruth L. Fischbach, Thomas E. Martin & E. Sander Connolly - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (5):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Disclosing Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants”: Defining Clinical Utility And Revisiting the Role of Relationships.Vardit Ravitsky & Benjamin S. Wilfond - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (6):W10-W12.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Strangers at the Beachside: Research Ethics Consultation”.Mildred K. Cho, Sara L. Tobin, Henry T. Greely, Jennifer McCormick, Angie Boyce & David Magnus - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (3):4-6.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2010-09-14
Total views
12 ( #809,029 of 2,505,624 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,705 of 2,505,624 )
2010-09-14
Total views
12 ( #809,029 of 2,505,624 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,705 of 2,505,624 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads