Premium
The Ethics of Research That May Disadvantage Others
Author(s) -
Robertson Christopher
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
ethics and human research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.353
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 2578-2363
pISSN - 2578-2355
DOI - 10.1002/eahr.500074
Subject(s) - psychological intervention , harm , disadvantage , status quo , outcome (game theory) , psychology , intervention (counseling) , competition (biology) , research ethics , political science , social psychology , economics , law , psychiatry , ecology , mathematical economics , biology
In prospective interventional research, a treatment may provide an advantage for the recipient over other people who do not receive it. If the intervention proves successful, the treated are better able to compete for such things as a scarce ventilator, a class grade, or a litigation outcome, potentially risking the deaths, jobs, or incomes of nontreated persons. Discussions of ethical concerns related to “bystanders” have typically focused on direct harms (such as infecting them with a virus), rather than the competition for a rivalrous good (such as a ventilator or clinical outcome). After broadly scoping this problem of advantage, this article reveals several reasons that such interventional research is typically permissible, notwithstanding the potential setbacks to nonparticipants. I consider the almost‐dispositive concept of clinical equipoise and then glean insights from the harm principle, status quo bias, the leveling‐down problem, and a potential bias against prospective interventional research versus program interventions with retrospective study. My consideration of institutional relationships does not change the analysis that such research is permissible.