(Why) should we require consent to participation in research?

Area of Science:

• Biomedical Ethics
• Research Ethics
• Moral Philosophy

Background:

• Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical biomedical research.
• The philosophical underpinnings and justification for informed consent remain debated.
• The ethical permissibility of state-mandated research participation is unclear.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically examine the ethical justifications for informed consent in biomedical research.
• To explore the moral legitimacy of state-compelled participation in research.
• To propose a framework for evaluating coercive research participation.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation and ethical analysis.
• Examination of principles such as non-maleficence, bodily integrity, and autonomy.
• Distinction between first-order and second-order moral principles.

Main Results:

• The requirement for informed consent cannot be solely defended by simple ethical principles like autonomy or non-maleficence.
• First-order moral principles may permit, and even justify, state coercion for research participation.
• Second-order moral considerations provide strong reasons for a general prohibition against coercive research participation.

Conclusions:

• While ethically permissible under certain first-order principles, mandatory research participation poses significant ethical challenges.
• A second-order moral prohibition on coercion in research is advisable to protect individuals and maintain public trust.
• Ethical frameworks must carefully balance research imperatives with individual rights and societal values.