Participant responsibility, researcher vulnerability and empirical ethics: a reply to Loughlin

Abstract

In a recent issue of this journal, Michael Loughlin offers a critique of work we undertook that we described and discussed in the same issue, and which might be seen as forming part of the so-called empirical turn in ethics. Here we respond to Loughlin's criticisms of our work. While he declares that generally, there is potential value in empirically informed ethics, we understand him to be concerned about our particular project on two counts. First, he is worried by the extent to which participants exercised responsibility within the work; and second, he is concerned about the degree to which we, as researchers, were prepared rigorously to examine and question participant assertions and assumptions. We argue that Loughlin's worries are based on a relatively limited view of the context in which empirically informed ethics related to health care takes place. A more complex understanding than he allows, of both the responsibility of participants and the vulnerability of researchers who are involved in projects of empirical ethics in this context, is required in order to recognize the ambiguities and difficulties faced by those involved in such projects.

Explanation, understanding, objectivity and experience

“…Like Fulford's article, the contribution of Peter Duncan and Anne Stephenson to this section is a further instalment of an exchange published in a previous philosophy thematic issue: in this case a discussion of the nature, role and limitations of ‘empirically informed ethics’ . While agreeing with Michael Loughlin about both the valuable and the problematic aspects of ‘the empirical turn’ in ethics , the authors look for practical ways to clarify the purposes of such research, so that in future both researchers and participants can be aware of their respective responsibilities.…”

A Comparative Trial of Fenfluramine and Diethylpropion in Obesity

“…While a number of reports have appeared which indicate that fenfluramine is more effective than placebo in helping obese patients lose weight (Traherne, 1965; Duncan et al, 1965; Munro el al., 1966; Brodbin and O'Connor, 1967; Gaind, 1969), there have been very few studies in which fenfluramine has been directly compared with another known effective appetite suppressant under controlled conditions. Although Spence and Medvei (1966) did give some of their patients d ‐amphetamine as well as fenfluramine their trial was uncontrolled.…”