The inalienable right to withdraw from research

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 840-846

  McConnell, Terrance ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; PATIENT; RESEARCH SUBJECT; UNITED STATES; XENOGRAFT;

CODES OF ETHICS; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MORAL OBLIGATIONS; PATIENT DROPOUTS; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; TRANSPLANTATION, HETEROLOGOUS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 78649554530     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: 1748720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00537.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. These documents are reprinted in E. J. Emanuel et al., eds., Ethical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research: Readings and Commentary (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003): at 31, 36, and 46, respectively.
2. Id., at 29.
3. E. Chwang, 'Against the Inalienable Right to Withdraw from Research, " Bioethics 22, no. 7 (2008): 370-378.
4. M. A. Spillman and R. M. Sade, "Clinical Trials of Xenotrans-plantation: Waiver of the Right to Withdraw from a Clinical Trial Should Be Required, " Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 2 (2007): 265-272.
5. See Chwang, supra note 3, at 370.
6. See Spillman and Sade, supra note 4, at 266-268.
7. L. W. Sumner, The Moral Foundation of Rights ( New York Oxford University Press, 1987): at Chapter 2.
8. T. McConnell, Inalienable Rights: The Limits of Consent in Medicine and the Law ( New York Oxford University Press, 2000): at 5-7.
9. Id., at 8-11.
10. This account is not stipulative. For a defense, see id., at 12-14 and 18-19. See also, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 2004): at 1348; A. T. Kronman, "Paternalism and the Law of Contracts, " Yale Law Journal 92, no. 5 (1983): at 775; and S. Rose-Ackerman, "Inalienability and the Theory of Property Rights, "Columbia Law Review 85, no. 5 (1985): at 931.
11. See McConnell, supra note 8, at 24-31.
12. See Chwang, supra note 3, at 374.
13. Id., at 375.
14. Id., at 371-372.
15. See Spillman and Sade, supra note 4, at 266-267.
16. Once a survey has been completed, one might wonder what further interests of subjects could be implicated. To cite just one possibility, subjects may have developed moral objections to the study and not wish to be complicit in any way with such a project.
17. See Spillman and Sade, supra note 4, at 269.
18. Id., at 269. See also, P. S. Florencio and E. D. Ramanathan, "Legal Enforcement of Xenotransplantation Public Health Safeguards, " Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32, no. 1 (2004): 117-123.
19. Id., at 270.
20. There may be reason to doubt this, however. See L. O. Gostin, Public Health Law, 2nd ed. ( Berkeley, CA University of California Press, 2008): at 400-404, for a discussion of when compulsory screening and conditional screening are justified.
21. See Chwang, supra note 3, at 371.
22. See McConnell, supra note 8, at 83-85.
23. Id., at 12 and 52.
24. E. Menikok and E. P. Richards, What the Doctor Didn't Say: The Hidden Truth about Medical Research ( New York Oxford University Press, 2006): at 45, arguing that a patient's waiver of the right not to sue for malpractice is not recognized by the law because it is "against public policy.".
25. See Kronman, supra note 10, at 778-779.