5 ms·
> Patient compensation is intentionally limited to prevent economic incentives from interfering with informed consent; pay people too much and they may particip
by boole1854 4y ago
> Patient compensation is intentionally limited to prevent economic incentives from interfering with informed consent; pay people too much and they may participate in research that they would have passed on.
I'm not sure I understand the logic here. How does agreement suddenly become less informed or less consensual because the participant gets paid more? Sure, if they get paid more, they might be willing to accept more risk or do something more unpleasant. But that seems fair, not immoral. Why would it be more fair to say "yes, perhaps this trial is risky, but we only want participants who don't demand to be compensated much for the risk they take"? If anything, maybe that approach leads to less informed consent by filtering out the people who actually understand the risk and would have only agreed to participant in exchange for more compensation!
Should we also be morally offended any time an employer raises wages in order to attract more workers?
- knodi123 4y ago> How does agreement suddenly become less informed or less consensual because the participant gets paid more Why shouldn't college professors sleep with their students? How does the relationship become less informed or less consensual? The answer is power. Money is power, and too large of a power imbalance corrupts a relationship. Money is pressure, and too much pressure is coercive.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI think it's still a fair question. The money is intended to be an incentive. If the trial is ethical and has a positive risk benefit ratio, there is no harm from coercion.
- knodi123 4y agoOkay, but what if a person sincerely does not want to participate in a medical trial? But then when he sees the dollar figure, he thinks "well, shit, I hate doing this, but I can't afford to turn that much money down." Same reason we don't allow the purchase of kidneys, and the same reason we think it's unethical for a millionaire with a tophat and a monocle to offer two homeless guys a wad of money to the winner if they fight each other. Sure, it's an adult making a decision of their own free will- but it's obviously unethical.
- pfdietz 4y agoThis seems either too much or not enough. Is it ok to pay more for risky or injurious jobs? If so, why not for medical trials? Simply working in a job where you have to kneel or lift your arms above your head all day leads to long term injury.
- JamesianP 4y agoProfessors historically were prohibited from relationships with students because it creates the appearance (and high likelihood) of favoritism. And it probably pisses parents off a lot because the age difference seems creepy. "Power" is a relatively new argument. These days the student has the power to utterly destroy the professor. The professor has at best the charismatic "power" equivalent to any number of smooth pickup artists occupying college dorms, of getting a temporary good time.