Paul M. McNeill

Paying People to Participate in Research: Why not?

This paper argues against paying people to participate in research. Volunteering to participate as a subject in a research program is not like taking a job. The main difference is to do with the risks inherent in research. Experimentation on human beings is, by definition, trying out something with an unknown consequence and exposes people to risks of harm which cannot be known in advance. This is the main reason for independent review by committee of research programs. It is based on a recognition that researchers are not always capable of putting the interests of their subjects ahead of their research objectives. It is not simply a matter of individual autonomy. Society has an obligation, prior to the protection of individual freedom and autonomy, to establish basic safeguards that are equitable in their operation. Any inducement for participating in research would add to the difficulty subjects have in adequately assessing the risks of participating in research. An acceptance of inducement to participate in research would further increase the inequity of research conducted on the impecunious for the benefit of the well-off.

Public health ethics: asylum seekers and the case for political action.

This paper is a case study in public health ethics. It considers whether there is a basis in ethics for political action by health professionals and their associations in response to inhumane treatment. The issue arises from Australias treatment of asylum seekers and the charge that this treatment has been both immoral and inhumane. This judgement raises several questions of broader significance in bioethics and of significance to the emerging field of public health ethics. These questions relate to the role of health professionals in response to inhumane treatment of people in their charge; to the discipline of public health in light of a growing recognition of its ethical basis; and the role of public health and bioethical associations in response to ethical issues arising in a political context. It is argued that, in serious cases of humanitarian and human rights abuses affecting health and well-being, there is a case for political action by health professionals, academic and professional institutions, and associations of public health and ethics.

A Critical Analysis of Australian Clinical Ethics Committees and the Functions They Serve

The predominant function of Australian clinical ethics committees (CECs) is policy formation. Some committees have an educational role. Few committees play any direct role in advising on ethics in the management of individual patients and this occurs only in exceptional circumstances. There is a tendency to exaggerate both the number and function of committees. It is suggested that studies of ethics committees, based on questionnaire surveys, should be interpreted cautiously. An examination of ethical issues indicates that there is a role for a critical analysis of power relations in Australian hospitals that is not fulfilled by CECs.

Public views on priority setting for High Cost Medications in public hospitals in Australia

Objective  To gather information about views of members of the general public about access to High Cost Medications (HCMs) in public hospitals.

Cooperative partnerships or conflict‐of‐interest? A national survey of interaction between the pharmaceutical industry and medical organizations

Abstract

Research ethics review and the bureaucracy

AbstractThis paper suggests that the increasing bureaucracy of ethics review by committee is more about fulfilling institutional requirements than it is about ethics. It is suggested that ethics committees should not be instruments of bureaucratic regulation and control. They should be freed to play a critical role within the institution, to support and develop ethical research and researchers, and given time to discuss and explore difficult ethical issues where they arise. To burden research ethics committees with trivial bureaucratic tasks is to miss an opportunity for healthy exchanges of views about ethics and to distort the nature and meaning of ethics.