Moral Obligation to Participate in Research and Market and Reimbursement Models

Take-Home Midterm
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Professor’s Name
Date
Question 1: How does Harris defend the idea that our moral obligation to participate in research is derived from the moral requirement of fairness? Is his argument persuasive?
Scholars research various issues globally. The research process is tedious and demanding, meaning researchers have to put together several components and considerations to ensure that they successfully achieve the objectives of their study. A controversial issue in research, especially in medical research, is whether it is people’s moral responsibility to participate in medical research. In his article “Scientific Research is a Moral Duty,” published in The Journal of Medical Ethics, John Harris (2005) addresses the responsibility of people in the success of medical research. He argues that support for or participating in medical research is a moral duty. Harris uses two strategies to defend his stand. The first is that Harris claims that the obligation to participate in and support ongoing medical research is derived from the benefits of the past research that people currently enjoy. The second of Harris’ argument is that the obligation to participate in medical research is anchored on the benefits yet to come. This piece explores the two ways that Harris uses to defend the idea of people’s moral obligation to participate in research as derived from the moral requirement of fairness. It argues that Harris’s argument is not persuasive enough about the obligation for people to participate in medical research.
Harris uses two approaches to argue that people have a moral obligation to participate in medical research. One is past based while the other is future based. The past-based argument, sometimes called the fairness argument, explores how people got into their present situation and their obligations. This means that the benefits of previous research should inspire moral obligation to participate in medical research. According to Harris, the people accepting the benefits of medical research act like free riders who enjoy the benefits yet do not have the right; thus, they have a moral obligation to contribute to that research or denounce the benefits they are enjoying (Harris, 2005). Therefore, Harris says that it is only fair to people who have accepted to benefit from their results to participate in research. However, the fairness argument is not enforceable. It also does not entitle those who participate in research to benefit more than those who do not participate. This means that fairness is not achieved until when people can voluntarily take part in medical research.
The second argument that is future-based is also known as the ‘do no harm basis.’ It argues that people have the moral obligation to participate in and support ongoing medical research because it will yield great future benefits. He argues that people should help when their actions help to prevent severe harm. He says that it is unethical to keep silent and not contribute to stopping a situation that harms millions of people (Harris, 2005). Harris quotes Singer’s prominent example that it was unethical to watch a drowning child and...