Society, individuals, and non-therapeutic medical research

This study attempts to establish the claim that persons have an obligation to participate in some types of non—therapeutic research. I arrive at this conclusion because I view individuals as the products of a collective agent, i.e., society, which is duty bound to provide persons with the opportunity for achieving individuality, which I argue is the chief human good. Hence, society must provide certain goods to its members. I argue that the opportunity for or enhancement of health is one of those goods. It follows that medical science must attempt to establish new treatments and cures, if possible. Individuals have a duty to assist the medical profession in this venture since individuals have a duty to be beneficent at times. I show that non-therapeutic research falls under this duty at times because of: 1) the benefit it provides, and 2) it does not interfere with the legitimate interests and rights of the research subjects.

After establishing this position I consider two different positions. Both Hans Jonas and Paul Ramsey argue that there is no obligation to participate in non-therapeutic research. I argue that they arrive at this conclusion given their presuppositions about the nature of personhood. I argue that they treat the notion of personhood in a nominalistic, individualistic manner which does not capture the full picture and impact of personhood. Since their metaphysical understandings of persons are inadequate they are led to give wrong moral judgments concerning the legitimate use of persons by society.

Finally, I examine the issue of drafting research subjects for non-therapeutic research. I conclude that it can be morally justified in extreme situations. But I also suggest that there may be good contervailing reasons for not instituting such a draft.