a University of Gothenburg.
Am J Bioeth. 2019 Sep;19(9):11-20. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1630498.
A growing literature documents the existence of individuals who make a living by participating in phase I clinical trials for money. Several scholars have noted that the concerns about risks, consent, and exploitation raised by this phenomenon apply to many (other) jobs, too, and therefore proposed improving subject protections by regulating phase I trial participation as work. This article contributes to the debate over this proposal by exploring a largely neglected worry. Unlike most (other) workers, subjects are not paid to produce or achieve anything but to have things done to them. I argue that this passivity is problematic for reasons of distributive justice. Specifically, it fails to enable subjects to realize what Gheaus and Herzog call "the goods of work"-a failure not offset by adequate opportunities to realize these goods outside of the research context. I also consider whether granting subjects worker-type protections would accommodate this concern.
越来越多的文献记录了一些人以参与一期临床试验赚钱为生。一些学者指出，这种现象引发了对风险、同意和剥削的担忧，这些担忧也适用于许多其他工作，因此提议通过将一期临床试验参与作为工作来规范，以改善受试者的保护。本文通过探讨一个被忽视的问题，为这场争论做出了贡献。与大多数其他工人不同，受试者的报酬不是基于他们的产出或成就，而是基于他们被做了什么。我认为，这种被动性在分配正义方面存在问题。具体来说，它使受试者无法实现 Gheaus 和 Herzog 所称的“工作之善”——这种失败并不能通过在研究环境之外获得实现这些好处的充分机会来弥补。我还考虑了给予受试者类似工人的保护是否能解决这个问题。
