Final answer:
Luther's clinical trial potentially violates ethical principles such as informed consent due to the coercive nature of the incentives and fairness in subject selection by targeting a vulnerable population. Ensuring participants' well-being and minimizing risks are essential to uphold ethical standards.
Step-by-step explanation:
Luther's study of the expensive allergy vaccine to combat grass allergies raises several ethical concerns regarding the principles that govern the conduct of clinical trials. Recruitment in urban areas with low socioeconomic status and the incentive of flat-screen TVs could potentially coerce participation. While the consent form lists potential dangers, such coercion may violate the ethical principle of truly informed consent.
Furthermore, targeting a specific low socioeconomic demographic could breach principles of fairness in subject selection, as it might exploit a population that could feel undue pressure to participate due to the offer of a high-value item like a TV. Also, the ethical consideration of whether the ends justify the means is relevant here, as offering such incentives might cloud participants' judgment regarding the risks of the study. Luther must ensure that the study does not put participants at undue risk or exploit them as a means to an end.
Additionally, the principle of beneficence is to be applied, where the health and well-being of the participants should be a priority, and any potential risks should be minimized and justified by the benefits for society. Ethical guidelines require that the study should yield important results for society, without undermining the rights and well-being of the participants.