The inalienable right to withdraw from research.

Most codes of research ethics and the practice of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) allow human subjects to withdraw from research at any time. Consent forms invariably make a statement to this effect. So understood, a subject's right to withdraw from research is inalienable; she cannot, through her consent, surrender this right. Recently critics have argued that in selected circumstances the right to withdraw from research is alienable; subjects have the moral authority, through their consent, to obligate themselves not to withdraw. Two kinds of cases have been cited to support this. In one case, there will be great benefits lost if subjects are permitted to withdraw before the completion of the protocol. In the other case, there will be harm to third parties if subjects withdraw from the experiment. In this paper, I defend the inalienability of the right to withdraw from research. I argue, first, that securing the desired benefits and avoiding the feared harms can be achieved without allowing waiver. Second, I show that permitting waiver in these cases does not guarantee that the ends sought will be achieved. And third, I articulate positive reasons for conceiving subjects' right to withdraw from research as inalienable.

Genetic enhancement, human nature, and rights.

Authors such as Francis Fukuyama, the President's Council on Bioethics, and George Annas have argued that biotechnological interventions that aim to promote genetic enhancement pose a threat to human nature. This paper clarifies what conclusions these critics seek to establish, and then shows that there is no plausible account of human nature that will meet the conditions necessary to support this position. Appeals to human nature cannot establish a prohibition against the pursuit of genetic enhancement.

Moral Combat in An Enemy of the People: Public Health versus Private Interests.

Dr Thomas Stockmann, the protagonist of Ibsen's play, An Enemy of the People, discovers a serious health threat in the Baths of his Norwegian town. The Baths have been marketed as a health resort to lure visitors. Dr Stockmann alerts officials about the problem and assumes that they will close the Baths until it is corrected. He is met with fierce resistance, however. His brother, the town's mayor, favors keeping the Baths open and correcting the problem gradually. He advances multiple arguments that appeal to the economic interests of the town and Thomas's role-related obligation as a citizen. His wife, Katherine, wants him to cooperate with the mayor. She marshals several arguments that appeal to his obligations as a father. This paper reconstructs and examines the competing arguments, shows how Ibsen's play has both contemporary relevance and moral depth, and demonstrates how Dr Stockmann's responses can be interpreted as an argument that complying with his duties to protect the public health do not force him to renege on his core commitments as a parent and as a citizen.

Conducting research related to treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Ethical issues.

Researchers are obligated to protect the rights of study participants. Protecting the rights of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is particularly complicated because of the special needs of this patient population, and the characteristics of developing treatments and technologies. Respecting autonomy and the right to self-determination are complicated by difficulties associated with assuring competence, understanding, and voluntariness in the informed consent process. Protecting patients with AD from harm may be complicated because new treatments have subtle side effects that may be difficult to detect in patients experiencing communication difficulties. Harm to patients with AD also may occur from withholding proven treatments in placebo-controlled trials, and in the use of genetic testing. Issues of justice in the allocation of research dollars and the ability of patients with AD to participate in research are also discussed. By recognizing potential pitfalls, researchers involved in testing new treatments for patients with AD can take proper steps to assure ethical treatment of study participants.