University Medical Center, Utrecht.
Bioethics. 2012 Feb;26(2):76-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01820.x. Epub 2010 Apr 5.
It is often argued that clinical research should not violate the Kantian principle that people must not be used merely as a means for the purposes of others. At first sight, the practice of clinical research itself, however, seems to violate precisely this principle: clinical research is often beneficial to future people rather than to participants; even if participants benefit, all things considered, they are exposed to discomforts which are absent both in regular care for their diseases and in other areas of daily life. Therefore, in this paper we will consider whether people are used merely as a means by being enrolled in clinical research. On the basis of recent studies of Kantian scholars we will argue that clinical research is compatible with the Kantian principle if the conditions of possible consent and end-sharing have been met. Participants are not used merely as a means if they have sufficient reasons to consent to being enrolled in clinical research and can share the ends of the researchers who use them. Moreover, we will claim that even if people are used merely as a means by participating in clinical research, it may not always be morally wrong to use them in this way.
人们常说,临床研究不应该违反康德的原则,即人们不能仅仅被用作他人目的的手段。然而,乍一看,临床研究本身的实践似乎恰恰违反了这一原则:临床研究通常有益于未来的人,而不是参与者;即使参与者从所有方面考虑都受益,他们也会遭受在常规疾病治疗和日常生活其他领域都不存在的不适。因此,在本文中,我们将考虑人们是否通过参与临床研究而被仅仅用作手段。基于最近对康德学者的研究,我们将论证,如果符合可能同意和共同分享的条件,临床研究是符合康德原则的。如果参与者有充分的理由同意参与临床研究,并能与利用他们的研究人员共同分享目标,那么他们就不会被仅仅用作手段。此外,我们还将声称,即使人们通过参与临床研究而被仅仅用作手段,以这种方式利用他们在道德上也不一定总是错误的。