Carnal Reason

The medical profession has long accepted that the risks faced by research participants must be very carefully restricted, and balanced against the potential benefits. The Declaration of Helsinki, which has underpinned the ethical grounds of research since 1964, clearly states that “in medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the well-being of the human subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society.”

But there are concerns that the desire to protect volunteers from potential harm is actually hampering research which could benefit the greater good. So should we all be obliged - or even compelled - to become human “guinea pigs”?

This controversial question has been raised by leading bioethicist Professor John Harris of the University of Manchester. Writing in the latest edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, he suggests the public should be “morally obliged” to take part in research, in a similar way to wearing a seat belt or performing jury service.

From news.scotsman.com (registration required)

Where I live jury duty is a legal obligation, as is wearing seat belts. The applicable laws are enforced by armed agents of the state. The idea that third parties can morally obligate one to do anything is silly. Either they are prepared to use force, or there is no obligation. I suspect the good doctor is well aware of this.

Harris has called for the Declaration of Helsinki to be reviewed, arguing that research is becoming “impossibly difficult” to undertake, and that, in certain circumstances, a degree of compulsion is justified.

No doubt a degree of resistance would be met by an escalated degree of compulsion. It does not seem to occur to the doctor that he might be able to recruit volunteers by offering them suitably large amounts of money. I suppose bullets are cheaper.

“The argument concerning the obligation to participate in research should be compelling for anyone who believes there is a moral obligation to help others, and/or a moral obligation to be just and do one’s share,” he writes. “Little can be said to those whose morality is so impoverished that they do not accept either of these two obligations.”

The argument is not at all compelling. I might well accept that I have an obligation to help others, and reserve for myself the decision as to how to fulfill it.

I am reminded of Daniel Webster’s remark:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

Posted on April 19th, 2005 by pwyll
Filed under: law