You're pulling a rhetorical trick with the definition of the word "coercion". Coercion usually means forcing someone to do something without giving them the opt

You're pulling a rhetorical trick with the definition of the word "coercion". Coercion usually means forcing someone to do something without giving them the option to be left alone. That kind of coercion is widely agreed to be bad, so the term "coercion" has a strong negative connotation. Paying test subjects to take experimental drugs is not coercion in that sense, and it's not widely agreed to be bad. You're trying to make it sound bad by expanding the definition of coercion to cover it, but you haven't provided a justification for why this kind of "coercion" should be considered bad--except that it kind of resembles "coercion" in the usual sense. Unfortunately, this kind of rhetorical trick is pretty effective. My options for responding are to either argue with you about what the word "coercion" means (which is a meaningless argument) or to claim that "some kinds of coercion are OK" (which sounds really bad taken out of context). But even though it's an effective argument, it doesn't contribute to the conversation; people who already agree with you will think it sounds convincing, but people who don't agree won't be convinced. Would you consider elaborating on your argument by explaining why you think that paying patients to participate in drug trials has the same negative features as "coercion" in the usual sense?