Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should All Drug Trial Participants Be Chosen By Lottery?
All participants for drug trials that involve humans in the US should be chosen randomly from those in the population who meet the required characteristics of the study.
In the status quo, people who take part in medical trials are those who need money, which is a dangerous form of coercion. This policy removes this coercive financial incentive in favour of a fair method: random chance.
This policy would make drug trials safer for participants.
Mandatory participation in drug tests would improve the quality and utility of medical trials.
The practice of randomly choosing is just and fair, as the inconvenience and potential dangers of the medical trials get distributed all over society from the bottom to the top.
Randomly selecting participants for trials takes away the chance for those who want to have access to potential treatments before they are widely available to step forward and volunteer.
Drug tests often require a control group that are given placebos and no other form of treatment. It is extra-unethical to withhold treatments when participants are not freely consenting to the possibility.
This policy would create perverse incentives for people.
This policy would agitate the public.
Forcing people to take drugs is a violation of human rights and civil liberties.
Since participation in many trials requires having a specific condition or meeting certain criteria, it will require a massive invasion of (currently private) medical records to find these people.
Any possible benefits of this policy are outweighed by the massive economic costs it would cause.
All drugs should be legalized.
Should the use of 'chosen' or gender-neutral pronouns be mandatory?
Should States Provide A Clean Needle Program for IV Drug Users?