Reconsidering the Terminology: Study Participants as “Subjects” or Not?

The article highlights the importance of semantics in shaping our perception of this relationship and the ethical, psychological, and practical dimensions of conducting research on human beings. The term “subjects” implies passivity and contradicts the principles of informed consent and participant...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Substance abuse : research and treatment Vol. 17; p. 11782218231217783
Main Author: Corpuz, Jeff Clyde
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.01.2023
Sage Publications Ltd
SAGE Publishing
Subjects:
Academic discourse
Autonomy
Clinical research
Ethics
Informed consent
Letter to the Editor
Passivity
Physicians
Practitioner patient relationship
Semantics
Terminology
Volunteers
Patient
subject
participants
ISSN:1178-2218, 1178-2218
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The article highlights the importance of semantics in shaping our perception of this relationship and the ethical, psychological, and practical dimensions of conducting research on human beings. The term “subjects” implies passivity and contradicts the principles of informed consent and participant autonomy, whereas research physicians often maintain a similar patient-physician relationship with participants. The article suggests that adopting more appropriate terminology, such as “participants” or “volunteers,” can better acknowledge their active role and foster collaboration. The author emphasizes that language in scientific discourse plays a significant role in upholding ethical principles and preserving the unique physician-participant relationship in clinical research.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1178-2218
1178-2218
DOI:10.1177/11782218231217783