Premium
Coercion and Access to Health Care
Author(s) -
Reiter Keramet
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
hastings center report
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.515
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1552-146X
pISSN - 0093-0334
DOI - 10.1002/hast.687
Subject(s) - coercion (linguistics) , transparency (behavior) , empirical research , psychology , medical research , research ethics , research center , health care , psychological research , sociology , criminology , social psychology , law , political science , medicine , psychiatry , epistemology , philosophy , linguistics , pathology
In this issue of the Hastings Center Report, Paul Christopher and colleagues describe a study of why prisoners choose to enroll in clinical research. The article represents an important methodological and policy contribution to the literature on prisoner participation in research and medical experimentation. Given the methodological and ethical debates to which this research seeks to make an empirical contribution, the careful manner in which the study was conducted and the transparency with which the authors describe the research is especially noteworthy. In sum, I respect the research steps the authors took. However, I disagree with their conclusions about both the absence of coercion for prisoner clinical research participants and the merits of applying risk‐benefit models to govern prisoner research participation.