Another Look At the Moral Obligations to Participate in Research Studies

It is not likely that any sizable portion of the world population does not benefit from medical science, and it is not likely that there is a sizable population against the advancement of medical science through research study. It is also unlikely that many people would be against any form of beneficence from medical research and medical science. It is, however, highly probable that anyone who visits their local clinic would deem it the moral obligation of the physician to dispense the latest knowledge from medical science to cure or inhibit ones ailment or illness, and that they have a right to that information. So a question is posed. If people deem it a moral obligation for the physician to use the most advanced form of medical science for their benefit, is the moral obligation reciprocate? Is there a moral obligation for citizens of a nation, or community, to become research subjects at least once to provide medical science with beneficence?

The Philosopher John Locke perpetuated a contractrarianist viewpoint, arguing that as people come together and form institutions, they have an obligation to the institute through which they are bound. They have a binding social contract, where the rights of the people are protected by giving governing discretion to the institution to which they are apart of. Those that benefit from being apart of the institution have the moral obligation to participate in a way that protects it. For the nation-state this would mean a moral obligation to join the military. In medical science, it would mean participating in at least one research study.

So is there a moral obligation to participate in at least one research study? This question pits two opposing philosophical theories against each other; Duty Theory and Consequentialism. Consequentialism is a teleological theory that purports that morality is determined by the end result. That it is okay to use someone as a means to an end, as long as the end result is for the common good. For example, volunteered participation in a clinical trial that will almost assuredly kill the participant is morally acceptable if the end result is for the benefit of everyone. It also introduces the concepts of utilitarianism and ethical altruism. The former advocating that an act is morally acceptable as long as the end result benefits everyone, and the latter advocating that an act is morally acceptable even if the end result benefits everyone but the participant. The aforementioned example would be an example of ethical altruism.

Duty Theory on the other hand, introduces deontology and Kantian ethics. This is the idea that in the process of an action, the end does not justify the means. The Kantian ethical principles take a more humanist perspective. Kant argued that humans are not to be used as tools, and that our treatment of people was reflective of the inherent value of that person. Pufendorf, the predecessor of Kant, and classifier of deontology, put forth the idea that man had a duty not to wrong others, promote good, and treat others as equals. Under Kantian ethics the above example, where the participant was killed during the research study, would have never taken place since the human was put at risk. Even if the end result was for the benefit of everyone, it would be immoral to carry out the action. Under Kantian ethical principles, no research study is worth risk towards a single individual.