• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

为什么被迫同意比不同意和被欺骗同意更糟糕?

Why is Coerced Consent Worse Than No Consent and Deceived Consent?

作者信息

Wendler David, Wertheimer Alan

机构信息

NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

出版信息

J Med Philos. 2017 Apr 1;42(2):114-131. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw064.

DOI:10.1093/jmp/jhw064
PMID:28201684
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5901088/
Abstract

The Standard View in research ethics maintains that, under certain conditions, investigators may deceive subjects and may enroll subjects without their consent. In contrast, it is always impermissible to coerce subjects to enroll, even when the same conditions are satisfied. This view raises a question that, as far as we are aware, has received no attention in the literature. Why is it always impermissible to undermine the validity of subjects' consent through coercion, but it can be permissible to undermine the validity of subjects' consent through deception, and it can be permissible to enroll subjects without any consent at all? The present analysis suggests that the answer traces to the conditions on the appropriate treatment of subjects. This conclusion suggests that some requirements for human subjects research, and for valid consent more generally, trace not to the protection of subjects per se but to the proper behavior of agents.

摘要

研究伦理中的标准观点认为,在某些情况下,研究者可以欺骗受试者,也可以在未经受试者同意的情况下招募他们。相比之下,即使满足相同条件,胁迫受试者参与研究始终是不允许的。据我们所知,这一观点引发了一个在文献中未受到关注的问题。为什么通过胁迫破坏受试者同意的有效性总是不允许的,而通过欺骗破坏受试者同意的有效性却可能是允许的,甚至在完全未经同意的情况下招募受试者也可能是允许的?目前的分析表明,答案可追溯到对待受试者的适当条件。这一结论表明,人类受试者研究以及更普遍意义上有效同意的一些要求,并非源于对受试者本身的保护,而是源于研究者的适当行为。

相似文献

1
Why is Coerced Consent Worse Than No Consent and Deceived Consent?为什么被迫同意比不同意和被欺骗同意更糟糕?
J Med Philos. 2017 Apr 1;42(2):114-131. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw064.
2
The Permissibility of Deception in Riskier Research.高风险研究中欺骗行为的可允许性
Ethics Hum Res. 2020 Mar;42(2):34-40. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500046.
3
Rethinking research ethics.重新思考研究伦理。
Am J Bioeth. 2005 Winter;5(1):7-28. doi: 10.1080/15265160590900678.
4
Coverage of research ethics in introductory and social psychology textbooks.基础心理学教材和社会心理学教材中研究伦理的涵盖情况。
Teach Psychol. 1984 Oct;11(3):146-9. doi: 10.1177/009862838401100305.
5
Research ethics in applied anthropology.应用人类学中的研究伦理
IRB. 1992 Nov-Dec;14(6):1-5.
6
Ethics in research.研究中的伦理
CBE Views. 1981 Winter;4(4):12-8.
7
Medical experimentation, informed consent and using people.医学实验、知情同意与利用人体。
Bioethics. 1994 Oct;8(4):293-311. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1994.tb00261.x.
8
Reconciling protection with scientific progress.协调保护与科学进步的关系。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2005 Sep-Oct;35(5):3. doi: 10.1353/hcr.2005.0082.
9
Counterfactual Consent and the Use of Deception in Research.反事实同意与研究中的欺骗使用
Bioethics. 2015 Sep;29(7):470-7. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12142. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
10
The welcome reassessment of research ethics: is "undue inducement" suspect?对研究伦理的可喜重新评估:“不当诱导”可疑吗?
Am J Bioeth. 2005 Sep-Oct;5(5):15-6. doi: 10.1080/15265160500244967.

引用本文的文献

1
Ethical challenges in conducting research in low and middle income setting during public health emergencies: a qualitative evidence of a COVID-19 pandemic: the experience of Iran.在公共卫生紧急事件期间于低收入和中等收入地区开展研究时面临的伦理挑战:以新冠疫情为例的定性证据——伊朗的经验
BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Mar 17;26(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s12910-025-01193-6.
2
SWAT 84: effects of same-day consent vs delayed consent on the recruitment and retention of trial participants-an observational SWAT.SWAT84:同日同意与延迟同意对试验参与者招募和保留的影响——一项观察性 SWAT 研究。
Trials. 2023 Oct 25;24(1):691. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07727-w.
3
When is coercive methadone therapy justified?强制美沙酮治疗在何时是合理的?
Bioethics. 2018 Sep;32(7):405-413. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12451. Epub 2018 Jun 8.

本文引用的文献

1
The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.《贝尔蒙报告》。保护人类研究受试者的伦理原则与准则。
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13.
2
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.《世界医学协会赫尔辛基宣言:涉及人类受试者的医学研究伦理原则》
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.