The most plausible pro-coercion view: requiring informed agreement while penalizing non-participation in research.

Abstract

In ‘(Why) should we require consent to research?’ Alan Wertheimer probes whether it is legitimate for the government to ‘coerce’ people into participating in biomedical research, including interventional biomedical research. In debating the rules that ought to govern participation in interventional biomedical research, we should distinguish two separate moral claims. First, interventional research should proceed only when the subject has given her informed agreement. Second, it is legitimate for the state to set a requirement that people participate in interventional biomedical research, and to penalize or punish those who refuse to participate. The most plausible ‘pro-coercion’ view accepts both of these claims. Though I stop short of endorsing this view, it captures important ‘pro-coercion’ and ‘anti-coercion’ intuitions.