Center for Bioethics and Biolaw, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmiescie 3, 00-047, Warsaw, Poland.
Med Health Care Philos. 2022 Sep;25(3):449-464. doi: 10.1007/s11019-022-10092-1. Epub 2022 May 24.
In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of-more or less well-justified-ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have a prima facie moral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical "spine" of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical "skeleton" of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits).
与大多数关于支付研究对象伦理的出版物不同,这些出版物通常从识别和分析支付实践引起的主要伦理问题开始(特别是过度诱导和剥削的风险),并以一套或多或少有充分理由的伦理建议结束,这些建议用于设计能够避免这些问题的支付方案。本文提供了一种系统的、基于原则的支付实践伦理分析。它认为,研究人员有向研究对象支付报酬的初步道德义务,这源于社会慈善原则。该原则构成了实践的伦理“脊柱”。研究伦理的其他伦理原则(尊重自主权、个体慈善和公正/公平)构成了道德上合理的支付方案的伦理“骨架”,为参与者提供了额外的道德理由:(1)补偿合理费用;(2a)将报酬概念化为对参与者有价值贡献的奖励,前提是它符合平等、充分和非剥削的标准,并且(ii)它不过分诱人(即,它不会对参与或保留构成过度诱导,也不会鼓励欺骗行为);或(2b)将报酬概念化为市场驱动的价格,前提是它是必要的,并旨在帮助研究实现其社会和科学目标,(ii)它不会加剧更广泛的社会不公正和不平等;(iii)它符合非剥削的要求;并且(iv)它不过分诱人。正义原则为不支付工资(或其他合理预期利润)损失提供了强有力的伦理理由。