This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Quentin R. Regestein, MD
Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1992;268(6):790.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Dr Bok¹ proposes that no matter how "unreasonable or socially unhelpful their choice may appear to the investigator," people have a right to refuse participation in research. She appeals to "codes of research ethics" that were drawn in response to Nazi horrors and other wrongdoings.

But a drug abuser who refuses urine screening could be considered antisocial. It seems inconsistent to justify this antisocial refusal by appealing to codes that themselves try to prevent antisocial action. Bok might reply that society's interest warrants dissent. Nevertheless, society may also rightfully tax the individual. In fact, society may benefit more if it allows investigators to use deception to discover drug abuse than if it discourages them by requiring cumbersome methods of the sort Bok suggests. Some drug abusers might even welcome deceptive means to detect their otherwise uncontrollable habits as a step toward treatment. Similarly, they might disapprove . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?