reply to post by reddwhite
It's taken me a while, but I am learning that headlines and Opening Posts are often sensationalized to get a discussion going. That's what seems to
have happened here.
The American Medical Association recomends compulsory participation in experimental vaccine trials " for the greater good" of
society.
The AMA has not made such a recommendation. That was just one of several options discussed in an opinion piece. That option was
not the one that the article concluded with, as inquisitive1 pointed out in the second post of this thread.
So, set aside the OP and headline as having misread the piece, what was in it? A discussion on various ideas to make sure there are enough human
subjects to test vaccines.
Giving money as an incentive is tough, either the researchers give too much or too little. There is a discussion of mandatory participation, with
both the pros and the cons being presented. It's possible that this
might be read to mean that in the case of a dire emergency, a killer
disease spreading rapidly with little time to stop it, mandatory participation might be the solution. But that's not what the article is
recommending.
The article suggests two things, consideration of a plan to have people declare whether or not they want to volunteer, before volunteers are needed,
and more education to reduce irrational fear of vaccines.
I'm sure the AMA would be pleased to get any suggestion on how to have an adequate supply of volunteers.
