3 ms·

I do think it's a silly argument that paying someone to do something means they're not freely consenting to do the thing. As long as it's not your fault that t

I do think it's a silly argument that paying someone to do something means they're not freely consenting to do the thing. As long as it's not your fault that they're in a bad economic situation, all you're doing is offering them an option that they, by accepting it, believe to be an improvement over their current situation. People who don't like sweatshops should be removing all barriers to the setting up of more sweatshops, so that they will compete for workers and eventually have to improve working conditions or raise wages. However, in this case, I suspect offering a monetary incentive wouldn't be necessary. Everyone knows about the terrible disease; just make a patriotic appeal and I expect you'd have plenty of unpaid volunteers.

refurb 6y ago
Accounting for financial aspects is not silly. People who are desperately poor will do desperate things for money that they would consent to otherwise. Taking advantage of that is unethical. And I’m not sure if you’d have a ton of unpaid volunteers or at least enough to power a trial. It’s not a simple “lets get a shot” it’s having to travel to a clinic several times over a period of time. It’s a serious commitment of time, that’s why trials are normally compensated. Otherwise your entire pool of patients are just upper class mid-white collar career who can work from home and skip work in the middle of the day.
- waterhouse 6y ago
  > Accounting for financial aspects is not silly. People who are desperately poor will do desperate things for money that they would consent to otherwise. Taking advantage of that is unethical. Why? The desperately poor person seems to think the money is worth it. Who are you to tell them it's bad for them to take it? The very stigma against "exploiting" such a person makes it less likely that other people will make them less-bad offers. > And I’m not sure if you’d have a ton of unpaid volunteers or at least enough to power a trial. In this thread, we have someone saying "I have signed up" and someone replying "thanks for taking a risk to help out the human race". It is patriotic, it is (or can easily be made) prestigious. (To make it visible, give out a hat, a button, a jacket, whatever.) I expect some guys would do it because it seems exciting or meaningful, others because they think it'll help them impress the ladies.

refurb 6y ago

Accounting for financial aspects is not silly. People who are desperately poor will do desperate things for money that they would consent to otherwise. Taking advantage of that is unethical. And I’m not sure if you’d have a ton of unpaid volunteers or at least enough to power a trial. It’s not a simple “lets get a shot” it’s having to travel to a clinic several times over a period of time. It’s a serious commitment of time, that’s why trials are normally compensated. Otherwise your entire pool of patients are just upper class mid-white collar career who can work from home and skip work in the middle of the day.

waterhouse 6y ago
> Accounting for financial aspects is not silly. People who are desperately poor will do desperate things for money that they would consent to otherwise. Taking advantage of that is unethical. Why? The desperately poor person seems to think the money is worth it. Who are you to tell them it's bad for them to take it? The very stigma against "exploiting" such a person makes it less likely that other people will make them less-bad offers. > And I’m not sure if you’d have a ton of unpaid volunteers or at least enough to power a trial. In this thread, we have someone saying "I have signed up" and someone replying "thanks for taking a risk to help out the human race". It is patriotic, it is (or can easily be made) prestigious. (To make it visible, give out a hat, a button, a jacket, whatever.) I expect some guys would do it because it seems exciting or meaningful, others because they think it'll help them impress the ladies.