Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Necessity, Rights, and Rationing in Compulsory Research
Keywords: bioethics
Compulsory research
Issue Date: 29-Jun-2022
Publisher: Wiley
Citation: GERALD OWEN SCHAEFER, ANANTHARAMAN MURALIDHARAN (2022-06-29). Necessity, Rights, and Rationing in Compulsory Research. The Hastings Center Report 52 (3) : 31-33. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.
Abstract: In “Compulsory Research in Learning Health Care: Against a Minimal Risk Limit,” Robert Steel offers an argument in favor of compelling individuals to participate in some research that poses more than minimal risk. In his view, the ethics of compulsory research turns on questions of fair distribution of benefits and burdens, within a paradigm analogous to health care resource rationing. We do not dispute that it may theoretically be permissible to compel participation in certain circumstances, including those that rise above minimal risk. Nevertheless, Steel's argument for this conclusion faces several challenges that ultimately render it unconvincing in its present form. First, compulsion should be subject to a “necessity” criterion, which substantially limits its applicable scope. Second, compulsion is a prima facie rights violation that requires stronger ethical justification than Steel offers. And third, substantial structural and motivational differences between rationing and compulsion render the analogy inapt.
Source Title: The Hastings Center Report
ISSN: 1552146X
DOI: 10.1002/hast.1394
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
Schaefer and Muralidharan 2022, Commentary on Steel.docx29.48 kBMicrosoft Word XML


Post-print Available on 29-06-2024

Page view(s)

checked on Sep 29, 2022


checked on Sep 29, 2022

Google ScholarTM



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.