Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 Mar;47(2):2. doi: 10.1002/hast.679.
The lead article in this issue discusses a potentially free metaphorical space-that of decision-making-within the confines, tangible and intangible, of life in jail or prison. By interviewing prisoner-participants from six clinical studies, Paul Christopher and colleagues sought to find out how these men and women would answer open-ended questions about their decision to enroll in the research. What the interviewers heard was that none saw themselves as having been inappropriately pressured to do so. In fact, a significant percentage of the prisoners described being dissuaded from participating in the studies. The authors therefore advise that unfair exploitation poses the more relevant research risk to contemporary prisoners in the United States than does coercion, and they encourage investigations into whether prisoners are unfairly restricted or discouraged from joining clinical studies. Although Keramet Reiter makes no reference to etymology in her commentary responding to the article, her argument suggests that the roots of "coerce"-the Latin for "shut up" or "enclose"-remain relevant. Reiter argues that, under current conditions, the people shut up in prisons in the United States cannot make an unfettered choice to join a clinical trial.
本期的主要文章讨论了一个潜在的自由隐喻空间——即在监狱或拘留所生活的有形和无形的限制内进行决策。通过对来自六项临床研究的囚犯参与者进行访谈,Paul Christopher 和同事们试图了解这些男女会如何回答关于他们参与研究的决定的开放式问题。访谈者听到的是,没有人认为自己受到了不适当的压力。事实上,相当一部分囚犯表示曾被劝阻不要参与研究。因此,作者建议,在美国,对当代囚犯来说,不公平的剥削比强制更能构成相关的研究风险,并鼓励对囚犯是否受到不公平的限制或劝阻参加临床研究进行调查。尽管 Keramet Reiter 在回应这篇文章的评论中没有提到词源学,但她的论点表明,“强制”的根源——拉丁语为“闭嘴”或“包围”——仍然相关。Reiter 认为,在美国,目前的条件下,被关在监狱里的人无法不受限制地选择参加临床试验。