Ethical Violations in "The Monster Study" Essay

The Willowbrook research also contributed to the public debate over research ethics and the impetus for regulation” (NAP, 2004). This research does not downplay the egregious acts of the research or coercing family members or guardians to consent to the research study through allowing entry into the school via the experiment venue. The residents of the school suffered while being exposed to a live hepatitis virus and while living in severely unsanitary conditions with undertrained and unsupervised staff that performed acts of violence on residents of the school. “Children were sitting on the floor, some nude covered in feces, rocking back and forth making pitiful sounds. Willowbrook was a state school, yet there was very little education happening. This was simply a dumping ground for the city’s unwanted children. The staff, overwhelmed and under-supervised, resorted to prison-style control tactics: disruptive residents were confined in solitary ‘‘pits’’ and left for hours or were beaten with keys and sticks” (Starogannis & Hill, 2008, p. 89). Evidently the research setting was not the optimal setting; the research was performed during a time when guidelines were nonexistent. Protection of the residents was put aside to reach for a vaccine that would aid many more than were affected which places into question the ethical behaviors of the determining entities.

To ensure that a researcher’s enthusiasm for knowledge and understanding doesn’t let them get carried away, clear guidelines for ethical behaviour in research, a Code of Ethics, have been established by governments, institutions and various professional societies such as the American Psychological Association(APA), the British Psychological Society (BPS) and the Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI).

A phenomenon applicable to the vast field of Speech-Language Pathology, and the foundation of research now and in the future can all be attributed to, difference versus disorder. This concept considers the complexities of those served within the profession and highlights the range of possibilities displayed from an individual, that draws a fine line between a person being labeled as having a dialectal difference or a speech and/or language disorder. A difference can be defined as an alteration in an individual’s speech and/or language that can be attributed to internal and external factors such as race, culture, and the environment in which a person lives. In contrast, a disorder is an actual disability that interferes with a person’s speech

Another issue of doing research with foster children is the reality that some of those children might be being abused. The issue of consent is again complicated because of the relationship between abused child and abusive guardian. Kinard provides three special situations where procedures for interviewing an abused child might need provisions: when a child is distressed by the interviewing or testing; when a child’s answers or test results indicate emotional problems; and when a child’s answers or comments indicate that the child is being abused. Kinard comments that the decision regarding whether to inform the guardian and/or others about the child’s answers must balance a guardian’s right to know against the child’s right to privacy. However, she notes that the decisions made under these circumstances require intense deliberations (1985).-need to put in quotes? Or change wording-exact copy from study

The Monster Study was conducted by Wendell Johnson and Mary Tudor at the University of Iowa in 1939. The purpose of this experiment was to see how positive speech affected orphan children. They also wanted to find out if stutters were genetic or formed because of the environment the child was exposed to. Twenty two orphan children were chosen to be the test subjects. Only ten of the children had a stutter. They were split into two groups. One group received positive praises and the other group received negative encouragement. None of the kids knew what they were being tested for.

The final ethical guideline that was broken was that the participants were not debriefed. The children were never told they had participated in an experiment till it was revealed by a newspaper sixty years later. The administrators and teachers at the orphanage were also misled about the purpose of the study and were not debriefed

Psychological research has been growing and developing new ways of studying human behavior, collecting knowledge and expanding our understanding of our nature. For instance, studies involving human subjects presented risks for violation of ethical research guidelines, by pushing the limits of human experience (Kim, 2012). Throughout history, there have been numerous studies that elevated this concern, such as the Milgram Experiment of 1963. One of the major ethical raised was that it lacked informed consent from the participants and eventually raised the issue of protecting human subjects. This paper examines the ethical compliance in psychological research and emphasizes the importance of ethics and professionalism by analyzing different

It is of utmost importance that ethical standards are overseen by a governing body like the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to hold researchers to ethical standards (Smith & Davis, 2010). The researchers of this study did have the approval process from the IRB. All the names were changed as a safeguard in this study as well on the final data collection so as not to violate anyone’s privacy. This could also be seen as another strength to the study giving no one a reason to lie.

Privacy and confidentiality are two possible ethical concerns for this proposal; conflict of interest also poses a threat. Capella University defines Conflict of interest as “a situation in which academic, financial, or other personal interests have the potential, either actual or apparent, to directly and significantly compromise an individual’s or group’s professional judgment or objectivity in designing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research” (Conflict of Interest in Research, 2008). This study will involve foster parents from different localities within the eastern part of Virginia. Initially the plan was to include foster parents of the same locality where

They hypothesized the results were due to the behavioral deficits because in dialogues informational context and acoustic properties are both more predictable. To test this, they conducted another experiment and “isolated the effects of the unpredictable acoustics of the halfalogue speech by filtering out the information content (i.e., rendering the speech incomprehensible) while maintaining the essential acoustic characteristics of speech onsets and offsets” (Emberson & Lupyan, 2010, p. 1387). Researches stated if the detrimental effects of overhearing halfalogues was due to the unpredictable acoustic changes, the significant distraction would be seen if they filtered out informational context and left low-level acoustic content. But if they filtered the speech then there should be no distraction when overhearing a halfalogue, meaning the increased distraction was due to the unpredictability of the other half of the conversation. The results of the experiment confirmed their hypothesis, overhearing a halfalogue resulting in behavioral deficits shown in their earlier experiment, were related to the unpredictability of the information, and not the differences in acoustics across the speech

You both provide some great examples of research studies that showcase ethical issues. Another one I came across is the death of Ellen Roche. She was a healthy 24-year-old research volunteer in an asthma study, which passed away as the result of inhaling hexamethonium, a medication for the treatment of hypertension, back in the 50s and 60s (Kim, 2012). After developing a bad cough, Roche ended up on a ventilator and eventually developed multiple organ failure, which resulted in her premature death (Kim, 2012). The purpose of study was to provoke a mild asthma attack, which would help physicians understand the reflex that protects healthy lungs against asthma attacks (Kim, 2012). Kim (2012) states that though both the National

1 Treatment approaches are considered motor-based (traditional) or pattern-based, which are linguistically based and have to do with phonology and distinctive features. Both approaches use behavioral techniques in treatment as the traditional approach treats articulatory motor behaviors and the pattern-based approach helps treat language behaviors as well as misarticulation patterns displayed through use of phonological processes. Rules of phonology and rules of distinctive features cannot be taught as rules. Rather, children learn such rules subconsciously. Differences in treatment approaches are found in case-specific targets of treatment and before and after analysis, not in the actual treatment procedures.

The research is not ethical if the main purpose is to only provide knowledge of the disease. The ethnicity of the research should be related to a cure of the hepatitis strain and as a prophylactic treatment in case someone else is exposed to the infection. There is no ethical significance that the children often developed immunity. The problem would not have developed if the children were properly taken care of by the facility. The facility should be held accountable for the outbreak of the infection. If the experiment did not provide the desired results, the facility should have stopped all testing. Furthermore, the protection of the children was not the focal point of the facility.

I would like to describe some of the ethical decisions I made I this case study. The observations were made about a child from pre-school setting so I needed to be sensitive about family confidentialities. Making reference to DCYA (2012) …

Albeit, in this study the onset tricked the participants about the results in order to had discover the effects of belief perseverance; receiving the participant’s thoughts on the forbidden toy study is crucial. Since, the Center for Children and Families at FIU plans to carry out the study as soon as possible. After the participants finish those instructions there are follow up questions. For instance, the following questions are: “Consider the study we plan to carry out at FIU. Compared to children in the no-threat condition, how do you think children in the threat condition will rank the forbidden toy?” (-5= less preferable, 0= no impact, 5= more preferable), “What if we did this study in Tampa, Florida? Compared to children in the no-threat condition, how do you think children in the threat condition will rank the forbidden toy?” (-5= less preferable, 0= no impact, 5= more preferable), “If the study we plan to run at FIU fails to replicate the results you originally read, to what extent would this failure to confirm the same findings impact your ratings of our real study?” (1= I’d find the new study questionable, 7= I’d find the new study trustworthy) and “In the study you originally read, what outcome did the researchers say occurred?” (1= more preferable than non-threatened children, 2= less preferable than non=threatened children, 3= neither more nor less preferable