AGAINST THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM RESEARCH

In this paper I argue, against the current consensus, that the right to withdraw from research is sometimes alienable. In other words, research subjects are sometimes morally permitted to waive their right to withdraw. The argument proceeds in three major steps. In the first step, I argue that right...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Chwang, Eric (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Wiley-Blackwell 2008
In: Bioethics
Year: 2008, Volume: 22, Issue: 7, Pages: 370-378
Further subjects:B inalienable
B Ethics
B alienable
B Rights
B Research
B Subject
B withdraw
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 178188126X
003 DE-627
005 20211211042759.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 211211s2008 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00666.x  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)178188126X 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP178188126X 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Chwang, Eric  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a AGAINST THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW FROM RESEARCH 
264 1 |c 2008 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In this paper I argue, against the current consensus, that the right to withdraw from research is sometimes alienable. In other words, research subjects are sometimes morally permitted to waive their right to withdraw. The argument proceeds in three major steps. In the first step, I argue that rights typically should be presumed alienable, both because that is not illegitimately coercive and because the general paternalistic motivation for keeping them inalienable is untenable. In the second step of the argument, I consider three special characteristics of the right to withdraw, first that its waiver might be exploitative, second that research involves intimate bodily access, and third that it is irreversible. I argue that none of these characteristics justify an inalienable right to withdraw. In the third step, I examine four considerations often taken to justify various other allegedly inalienable rights: concerns about treating yourself merely as a means as might be the case in suicide, concerns about revoking all your future freedoms in slavery contracts, the resolution of coordination problems, and public interest. I argue that the motivations involved in these four types of situations do not apply to the right to withdraw from research. 
650 4 |a Ethics 
650 4 |a Subject 
650 4 |a Research 
650 4 |a withdraw 
650 4 |a alienable 
650 4 |a inalienable 
650 4 |a Rights 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Bioethics  |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1987  |g 22(2008), 7, Seite 370-378  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)271596708  |w (DE-600)1480658-7  |w (DE-576)078707986  |x 1467-8519  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:22  |g year:2008  |g number:7  |g pages:370-378 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00666.x  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00666.x  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 22  |j 2008  |e 7  |h 370-378 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4019004242 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 178188126X 
LOK |0 005 20211211042759 
LOK |0 008 211211||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-10#EAB43C805E32EF7E1C4747E6752DE8386DAA2D1F 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw