Research with the mentally retarded and mentally ill: rights and duties versus compelling state interest

This paper examines the assumptions underlying the ethical reasoning involved when the natural right to informed consent has been violated. Ramifications of the compelling need of the state to protect society by overriding the rights of individual freedom receive special attention. Specifically these issues are addressed: natural rights versus state's rights to preserve rights, state's rights versus parental autonomy, rights and duties versus paternalism, self interest and self survival versus the common good, coercion versus progress in research, and benefit versus cost. Building on these ethical considerations, the authors present a theoretical framework for ethical decision making with research involving the mentally retarded and the mentally ill.