Conflict of Interest in Clinical Research: Enrolling a Family Member
This paper addresses a research ethics dilemma: whether a principal investigator should enroll their father, who has Parkinson's disease, in a new drug efficacy and safety study they are conducting. The author argues against enrollment on three grounds — potential harm from unknown side effects, the psychological risk of dashed expectations given the father's early dementia, and the conflict of interest that family participation would create. The paper draws on AcademyHealth's ethical guidelines for managing conflicts of interest in health services research to support this position, concluding that a "wait and see" approach best protects both the participant and the integrity of the study.
- Introduction and the Central Question: PI considers enrolling father in Parkinson's drug trial
- Risk of Harm and the Ethics of Experimental Participation: Protecting father from unknown side effects and harm
- Psychological Risk and the Wait-and-See Approach: Dementia and dashed expectations pose psychological danger
- Ethical Guidelines on Conflict of Interest: AcademyHealth guidelines support excluding family members
- Conclusion: Wait-and-see protects father and research integrity
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies a clear personal ethical stance and immediately supports it with logical reasoning, making the argument easy to follow.
- It acknowledges a potential counterargument — the apparent hypocrisy of protecting one's own father while enrolling other participants — and addresses it directly with the informed consent framework.
- It integrates an authoritative external source (AcademyHealth) to ground the personal argument in established research ethics principles, giving the paper academic credibility.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the technique of counterargument acknowledgment and rebuttal. The author proactively raises the objection that excluding one's own father while enrolling others seems hypocritical, then resolves it by pointing to the informed consent process — showing awareness of competing values and handling them rather than ignoring them.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a direct statement of the ethical question, followed by a multi-part personal rationale organized around harm, psychology, and conflict of interest. It then pivots to external ethical authority (AcademyHealth guidelines) to validate the personal reasoning. A brief conclusion ties both threads together. The structure mirrors a standard applied-ethics argument: position → reasoning → external validation → conclusion.
Introduction and the Central Question
The question at hand is whether I, as principal investigator of a study on a new drug that could potentially help those who suffer from Parkinson's disease, should enroll my father — who has the disease — in the study. After careful consideration, my answer is no.
The study concerns a brand new drug that has not been researched previously. As principal investigator, I am tasked with studying the efficacy and safety of a drug that may or may not prove to be effective against Parkinson's disease. For several reasons, I would not enroll my father as a participant in this trial.
Risk of Harm and the Ethics of Experimental Participation
If the drug turns out to have harmful side effects, I would not want to have subjected my father to those negative impacts. This may sound hypocritical, because I would then be willing to subject other participants' fathers to the potential risks of an experimental drug. However, other participants' families will no doubt sign the legal documents allowing their family members to take part in the research. As long as every participant has a full understanding of the potential effects of this experimental drug, I feel ethically secure in enrolling other human subjects. Informed consent is the critical safeguard that distinguishes voluntary participation from exposure without agreement.
Psychological Risk and the Wait-and-See Approach
A second reason for not enrolling my father is straightforward: if the drug does turn out to be an effective treatment — whether a cure or a meaningful reduction in suffering — he will be able to benefit from it after the study concludes. If he has had Parkinson's for some time, waiting another year, or however long it takes to verify the value of the new drug, will not significantly harm him. A wait-and-see approach is therefore the most prudent course from my perspective.
Additionally, my father is quite elderly and appears to be entering the early stages of dementia. He might develop very high hopes that the drug will cure him. If the drug turns out to be ineffective, that would be a serious psychological blow. Unreasonable expectations that are subsequently dashed could cause him significant psychological harm and might push him into a deeper state of dementia. Recognized symptoms of Parkinson's disease include "depression … [and] sleep disruptions" (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2015). If my father believed he was going to be cured but the drug proved ineffective, I would not want to have contributed to his depression or worsened his overall condition.
Conclusion
As argued throughout this paper, if the drug turns out to be beneficial, I will certainly ensure that my father is prescribed the medication. However, I would not risk potential harm to him, nor would I risk creating a conflict of interest that could compromise both his well-being and the integrity of the research.
Works Cited
AcademyHealth. (2004). Ethical guidelines for managing conflicts of interest in health services research. Retrieved March 17, 2015, from http://www.academyhealth.org.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2015). Parkinson's disease: Hope through research. Retrieved March 17, 2015, from http://www.ninds.nih.gov.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.