Work

Misconceptions About Coercion and Undue Influence: Reflections on the Views of Irb Members

Year: 2012

Type: article

Abstract: Payment to recruit research subjects is a common practice but raises ethical concerns relating to the potential for coercion or undue influence. We conducted the first national study of IRB members and human subjects protection professionals to explore attitudes as to whether and why payment of research participants constitutes coercion or undue influence. Upon critical evaluation of the cogency of ethical concerns regarding payment, as reflected in our survey results, we found expansive or inconsistent views about coercion and undue influence that may interfere with valuable research. In particular, respondents appear to believe that coercion and undue influence lie on a continuum; by contrast, we argue that they are wholly distinct: whereas undue influence is a cognitive distortion relating to assessment of risks and benefits, coercion is a threat of harm. Because payment is an offer, rather than a threat, payment is never coercive.

Source: Bioethics

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01972.x

Authors: EMILY LARGENT, CHRISTINE GRADY, FRANKLIN G. MILLER, ALAN WERTHEIMER

Institutions: University of Vermont, National Institutes of Health, Harvard University, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center

Language: English

Topic: Ethics in Clinical Research

Subfield: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Field: Medicine

Domain: Health Sciences

SDG: Peace, justice, and strong institutions

Open Access status: green

Funder: National Institutes of Health