The delicate balance of work and illusion in psychoanalysis

One might say that the analyst counts on the patient's unconscious work, while conscious work is, to some extent, just one more thing to be deconstructed (analyzed). Analyst and patient, however, cannot avoid thinking that they are working on a common project, partly because the image of a mutual work distracts from the painfully uncertain illusion that the analyst is really offering a lasting, familial sort of bond, and partly because the sense of being involved in a joint project actually fosters the specific unconscious psychoanalytic work, provided that it is delicately balanced against the necessary illusion of the relationship. If, however, we choose to tilt the balance one way or the other, we must be prepared to make some sacrifices.     

Challenging research on human subjects: justice and uncompensated harms

Ethical challenges to certain aspects of research on human subjects are not uncommon; examples include challenges to first-in-human trials (Chapman in J Clin Res Bioethics 2(4):1–8, 2011), certain placebo controlled trials (Anderson in J Med Philos 31:65–81, 2006; Anderson and Kimmelman in Kennedy Inst Ethics J 20(1):75–98, 2010) and “sham” surgery (Macklin in N Engl J Med 341:992–996, 1999). To date, however, there are few challenges to research when the subjects are competent and the research is more than minimal risk with no promise of direct benefit. The principal reason given for allowing research that is more than minimal risk without benefit is that we should respect the autonomy of competent subjects. I argue that though the moral intuitions informing respect for autonomy are sound, there is another set of intuitions regarding what we take to be just treatment of another when one agent knowingly causes or allows suffering on another agent. I argue that concerns generated by commutative justice serve as limitations on permissible research. I highlight our intuitions informing this notion of justice by appealing to work done on theodicy; what counts as a morally sufficient reason for God to allow suffering in humans is applicable also to the researcher-subject relationship. I conclude that all human subjects who are exposed to more than minimal risk research should enjoy the same actual protections (e.g., subpart D) as those given subjects who cannot consent.     

Moral reasoning and the review of research involving human subjects

The model of moral reasoning used in Institutional Review Board review fails to uphold ethical ideals for research participants for it does not adequately acknowledge the particular context of research or of subjects, including their gender, their socioeconomic status, and the communities in which they lead their lives. The ethical review of research needs to take seriously the particularities of the research context as well as the situations of potential participants. A variety of conclusions are drawn for changes to the system for ethical review. Most significant is a call for effective consultation with the various communities affected by research and greater reliance on subject representatives. Also proposed is national review for selected research.     

Ethics, public policy, and human fetal tissue transplantation research.

This article focuses on the deliberations of the National Institutes of Health Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel in 1988. It explores various arguments for and against the use of fetal tissue for transplantation research, following elective abortion, and for and against the use of federal funds for such research. After examining the relevance of various positions on the moral status of the fetus and the morality of abortion, the article critically examines charges that such research, especially with federal funds, would involve complicity in the moral evil of abortion, would legitimate abortion practices, and would provide incentives for abortions. Finally, it considers whether the donation model is appropriate for the transfer of human fetal tissue and whether the woman who chooses to have an abortion is the apppropriate donor of the tissue.     

Conflict of interest issues in informed consent for research on human subjects: a South Asian perspective

Health research for progress in the control and conquest of disease afflicting man is unquestionable. Concerns arise when motives other than the advancement of scientific knowledge and benefit for individuals and society are the driving force behind clinical trials. These conflicts of interests become even more pronounced when dealing with populations rendered vulnerable by virtue of poverty and ignorance. South Asia with its teeming millions represents one such region. This essay examines the reasons that make this population vulnerable to exploitation. Informed consent in the process of research is an area where such conflicts are prone to arise. In order to ensure that conflicting interests of researchers and funding agencies are kept in check, the processes of informed consent and ethical review of research need to be strengthened. Suggestions are put forward to modify the consent process to match the needs of South Asia and to strengthen the ethical review process for safeguarding the rights of the study subjects. But perhaps the most important safeguard against exploitation is the virtuous researcher himself with noble intentions. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an International Conference on “Conflict of Interest and its Significance in Science and Medicine” held in Warsaw, Poland on 5–6 April, 2002.