Abstract
Utilitarianism holds that aggregate welfare (or happiness) is the ultimate standard of right and wrong. This theory determines what is right, among the courses of action possible, by summing the gains and losses to welfare likely to result from each course of action. The right or best thing to do is the course of action that is likely to produce the greatest net sum of welfare. The problem referred to in my subtitle arises because research ethical review boards tend to insist that, to win approval, research projects involving human subjects must obtain the informed consent of those subjects. Moreover, and this is the rub, this requirement is for all intents and purposes absolute. Lack of informed consent is not treated as a welfare loss that can be compensated for by other welfare gains. Informed consent is a requirement independent of welfare gain-and-loss calculations, such that, even where there is reason to believe that a research project would serve to maximize net welfare, the review boards will not approve it unless there is provision for the informed consent of subjects. In short, these boards will do something that seems decidedly unutilitarian: They will recommend a course of action (nonperformance of a research project) though it is likely to produce less welfare than an alternative possible action (performance).
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Milgram, S.: 1963, ‘Behavioral Study of Obedience’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 371–378.
Reiman, Jeffrey H.: 1979, ‘Research Subjects, Political Subjects, and Human Subjects’, in C. B. Klockars and F. O’Connor (eds.), Deviance and Decency: The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects, Sage Publications, Bevery Hills and London.
Sumner, L. W.: 1987, ‘Utilitarian Goals and Kantian Constraints (Or: Always True to You, Darling, in My Fashion)’, in this volume, pp. 15–31.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reiman, J. (1988). Utilitarianism and the Informed Consent Requirement (or: Should Utilitarians be Allowed on Medical Research Ethical Review Boards?). In: Brody, B.A. (eds) Moral Theory and Moral Judgments in Medical Ethics. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2715-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2715-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7723-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2715-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive