Guest Post: Alexander Masters and Dominic Nutt
Paper: A Plutocratic Proposal: an ethical way for rich patients to pay for a place on a clinical trial
Is it ethically possible to fund a clinical trial by charging the participants? We believe we have discovered a way to do it. Our suggested method has, as far as we know, never been proposed before.
In A Plutocratic Proposal: an ethical way for rich patients to pay for a place on a clinical trial we show how the system could work and argue that all the usual and obvious objections to patient-funded clinical research do not apply in this case; indeed, in several respects the Plutocratic Proposal is more ethical than established methods of funding human experiments. Furthermore, we believe the Plutocratic Proposal will provide new money for research, particularly for neglected research into rare diseases; it will not deplete the already limited resources of traditional funders.
The ‘usual ethical objections’ include such points as:
- paying participants could be exploited by research teams desperate to run their trials;
- research teams might bend their inclusion criteria to accommodate rich patients and so encourage bad science;
- by enabling research groups to charge patients directly, they can bypass the peer review process and so promote quack ideas;
- paying patients will attempt to buy their way off concurrent comparison wings, which is not only ethically but scientifically ruinous.
How can a patient-financed funding scheme overcome such fundamental and, until now, apparently insuperable ethical objections? Read the paper to find out
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.