Taking part in paid medical trials

  • Thread starter Thread starter J_G0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

J_G0

Guest
Is taking part in paid medical trial a sin? I’m considering a quarantine trial on flu where they inject you with a virus and lock up under observation for a week or 2 but am not sure whether I should. Is that ethical in the light of the Church’s teaching?
 
I think it really depends on what it’s for, and the types of drugs they’re using. I don’t think there’s anything actually wrong with it, per Church teaching.
 
My main concern is the fact that you’re being paid for getting ill (you’re being injected with a virus) which somehow seems to me like mutilating one’s body in a way…
 
Presuming the general standards of medical ethics are met, that would be fine. Medical trials are an important part of developing treatments.

Look into the principle of double effect. The main purpose here isn’t “to get sick”, it’s to develop treatments that can hopefully help others. Getting sick is a necessary part of that.
 
I think it is ethical, perhaps even praiseworthy. You are helping doctors develop a medicine that could potentially save lives.
 
I would make sure to read the fine print about any possible side effects. I knew someone
who participated in paid medical trials. The money was good and I don’t think she
ever experienced any adverse reaction, but I think there is always that risk.
 
I personally would be weary of being injected with any virus especially if they are using a flu strain that has the potential to develope severe illness or death. Nor do I agree if reasearch have ‘tinkled’ with viruses especially with ones that do not spread easily. I really hope it is not one of these medical trials in the below article…
NIH lifts 3-year ban on funding risky virus studies

By Jocelyn KaiserDec. 19, 2017 , 9:00 AM

More than 3 years after imposing a moratorium on U.S. funding for certain studies with dangerous viruses, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, today lifted this so-called “pause” and announced a new plan for reviewing such research. But federal officials haven’t yet decided the fate of a handful of studies on influenza and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) that were put on hold in October 2014.

Two investigators whose controversial studies on deadly avian influenza viruses are among 11 on hold welcomed the end of the pause. “This NIH decision allows us to move forward,” virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin in Madison wrote in an email.

NIH officials believe the pending studies are probably outdated and scientists will want to submit new proposals. The new process, NIH Director Francis Collins says, “will help to facilitate the safe, secure, and responsible conduct of this type of research.” Critics of the studies, meanwhile, are withholding judgment until they see how the review process plays out.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DarkLight said:
Look into the principle of double effect. The main purpose here isn’t “to get sick”, it’s to develop treatments that can hopefully help others. Getting sick is a necessary part of that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is unethical (necessarily), but this is a very erroneous application of double effect. In order for a course of action to be moral, it must (at minimum) not involve any chosen object which is evil in itself. If the good end will be obtained via evil means, it is illicit, regardless of the “main purpose”.

So the question comes down to “is deliberately getting the flu intrinsically evil?” I don’t think so, since it will probably not result in death or long-term disability, but the fact that it is a necessary means to a good end doesn’t automatically determine the moral character of the act.
 
Are you going to be injected with an active flu virus, or is this a new vaccine which probably contains a weakened or inactive virus?
 
Last edited:
First, what IS the Church’s teaching on this?

Secondly, how on earth can it be a sin? Every medicine we take has been subjected to clinical trial. Should we risk our loved ones to untested (in humans) drugs? Law forbids it. What to do?

You are assisting in the advancement of medical science! Voluntarily. Against the flu, which kills a certain number of children and elderly each year. You are assuming personal risk for the sake of others.
“No greater love is there…”

The money? Read Matthew 10:10.

I have been in three, and now signed up for my fourth clinical trial. The only compensation is travel and lunch. One of the drugs I was on for 5 years. It is effective against certain rare and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas that have a poor prognosis, and for which there is still no defined treatment. I know a few individuals that are alive solely because of it - me being one of them. How could that be a sin?

Speak with your priest, but you are almost certainly overthinking this.
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to the Catechism on medical research on human subjects:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#2292

It opens with this positive statement:
2292 Scientific, medical, or psychological experiments on human individuals or groups can contribute to healing the sick and the advancement of public health.
Click to expand...
The following passage tells what to avoid:
2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are okay to participate in this study.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top