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

Peter Duncan*, Anne Stephenson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)553-558
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2013


  • empirically informed philosophy
  • ethics
  • research methodology
  • research methods


Dive into the research topics of 'Participant responsibility, researcher vulnerability and empirical ethics: A reply to Loughlin'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this