<i>Glanis</i> and Juvenal V. 104. (See <i>C.R.</i> LII. 56.)

Palmer, L. R.; Owen, S. G.; Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth

doi:10.1017/s0009840x00073674

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As long as studies are safe, it cannot be against a subject's best interests to participate, regardless of the amount of payment. 77 Ezekiel Emanuel writes, "A research trial that otherwise fulfills the fundamental ethical requirements for human subjects research inherently cannot create the possibility of undue inducement because substantial risk of serious harm is precluded." 78 But in reality, might payment be hoodwinking review committees as well?…”

Section: But Do Incentive Payments Inherently Increase Risk Outside Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Paying Human Subjects in Research: Where are We, How Did We Get Here, and Now What?

Vanderwalde

Kurzban

2011

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both international and federal regulations exist to ensure that scientists perform research on human subjects in an environment free of coercion and in which the benefits of the research are commensurate with the risks involved. Ensuring that these conditions hold is difficult, and perhaps even more so when protocols include the issue of monetary compensation of research subjects. The morality of paying human research subjects has been hotly debated for over 40 years, and the grounds for this debate have ranged from discussion of legal rights, economic rights, philosophical principles of vulnerability and altruism to bioethical concepts of consent, best-interest determination, and justice theory. However, the thought surrounding these issues has evolved over time, and the way we think about the role of the human research subject today is markedly different than the way we thought in the past. Society first thought of the research subject as an altruist, necessarily giving of his time to benefit society as a whole. As time progressed, many suggested that the subject should not need to sacrifice himself for research: if something goes wrong, someone should compensate the subject for injuries. The concept of redress evolved into a system in which subjects were offered money as an inducement to participate in research, sometimes merely to offset the monetary costs of participation, but sometimes even to mitigate the risks of the study. This article examines ethical and legal conversations regarding compensation from the 1960s through today, examining theories of the ethics of compensation both comparatively and critically. In conclusion, we put forward an ethical framework for treating paid research subjects, with an attempt to use this framework as a means of resolving some of the more difficult problems with paying human subjects in research.

show abstract

Section: But Do Incentive Payments Inherently Increase Risk Outside Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Paying Human Subjects in Research: Where are We, How Did We Get Here, and Now What?

Vanderwalde

Kurzban

2011

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This concept has been challenged by the recognition ot various well-established facts. The clinical onset of the disease occurs at any age, may be insidious at times, and also preceded by an asymptomatic prediabetic stage, of variable duration (from weeks to many years), character ized by heterogeneous genetic susceptibility, immunologi cal markers, and gradual progression of (3-cell function impairment [3]. From the point of view of the pathogene sis, the terminology of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus ought to be recommended, replacing that of 1DDM and N1DDM [4],…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontiers of Clinical Research in Type 1 Diabetes

Leiva

1996

Horm Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Type 1 diabetes may appear at any age. The onset may be insidious and even asymptomatic for a long time. The prediabetic stage is characterized by genetic susceptibility, the presence of autoantibodies in serum, and gradual impairment of the β-cell function. HLA-DQ-encoded heterodimers are strongly associated with increased risk/protection. Additional diabetogenic genes are present in other chromosomes, different from HLA region genes. Screening of prediabetes is usually restricted to first-degree relatives of type 1 diabetic subjects. Islet cell antibody (ICA)-positive gestational diabetic women form a subset of patients with increased risk of developing type 1 diabetes shortly after pregnancy. Optimization of metabolic control is the key strategy for preventing late diabetic complications. Diabetic education, intensive insulin therapy and regular screening for early detection are critical in achieving this goal. Individual monitoring of subjects at high risk for developing hypoglycaemias, and development of more adequate short- and long-acting insulin analogues represent important measures to avoid hypoglycaemia and associated risks. Effective delivery of care for type 1 diabetic subjects requires the operation of a continuous quality assessment programme.

show abstract

Glanis and Juvenal V. 104. (See C.R. LII. 56.)

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Paying Human Subjects in Research: Where are We, How Did We Get Here, and Now What?

Paying Human Subjects in Research: Where are We, How Did We Get Here, and Now What?

Frontiers of Clinical Research in Type 1 Diabetes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About