Ethics Boards Should Be Considerate Of The Patient's They Are Using To Conduct Their Research

Ethical guidelines are the frameworks and standards that govern psychologists in conducting a morally justified research to respect the rights of the participants. Since the researchers are responsible for the welfare of the participants, it is vital for them to act in accordance with a specific strict code of ethics and moral principles. One of the common ethical framework used in many psychological studies is IVCARD where ‘I’ stands for Informed Consent, ‘V’ equals Voluntary Participation, ‘C’ is Confidentiality, ‘A’ being Accurate Reporting, ‘R’ is Right To Withdraw and ‘D’ as Do No Harm. Although there are few disadvantages of these strict ethical guidelines, the advantages outweigh them. This is evident from two of the

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).

The central ethical conflicts of the Clara’s case are several infringements committed regarding human rights in human experimentation. According to the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics [APA] (2010) experiments such as Clara would have violated several sections from standard 8: 8.01 (obtaining institutional approval), 8.02 (participants’ informed consent), 8.04 (client/patient, student, and subordinate respect to continue in research), 8.07 (deception in research), and 8.09 (humane care). Section 8.01 indicates that researchers must obtain approval prior

One of the major concerns was the issue of ownership of biological samples once they have been removed from the subject’s body. Did the Havasupai have the right to be upset about blood samples that were no longer in their body? Or were the researchers wrong for not asking the tribe to consent to every possible study the samples could be used for. Based on the ethical problems raised by the Havasupai trial, two possible solutions were presented. The solution of tiered consent was presented first, in which each individual member of the tribe would have to consent to their own involvement in a study. Individual “research participants are presented with a menu of options from which to choose,” (Mello and Wolf 2010, 205) from that menu they could give as little or as much consent to the particular study being presented and to possible future studies involving their biological samples. Tiered consent aligns with the ethical principle of respect for persons, where each individual is treated as an autonomous agent and researchers must respect everyone autonomy and their right to decline participation in a study. Another possible solution that emerged as a guideline for working with Native American research participants was community based participatory research (CBPR) and material and data-sharing agreement (MDSA). CBPR and MDSA differed from tiered consent in that they

This temptation happens when the research question, such as a cure for cancer, is extremely important and the answer could save lives. If the investigators cared more about the scientific or medical advancement than the well-being of their participants, they would cross a line that prohibits treating human subjects as a means to an end. When this line is crossed, there is little left to protect patients from a callous disregard of their welfare for the sake of research goals. Informed consent would not matter because of the unbalanced relationship between the knowledge and authority among the researcher and the subject. Approval by an institutional board, although it is important, can be subject to change in its responsiveness to patients’ interests when they conflict with the welfares of the researchers. Going back to Paul’s case, he agrees to enter a clinical trial which was suggested by his oncologist. The study, that Paul has agreed to enter, has claimed that this research team has created a new drug that may be on its way to cure cancer. Obviously to a father and husband, this trial looks very appealing. However, the researchers knowingly form two groups that will compare two treatments. What Paul doesn’t know, is that one of the treatments is better than the other. One group will receive this new drug and the other group will receive a placebo. Comparing this new treatment

A review of the proposed participants of the study will ensure high-risk groups (if any) will be considered as per the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (‘National Statement’; NHMRC, 2007). While some of these high-risk

To keep away from damaging circumstances moral standards ought to be given to specialists and their members for reference. With the goal for this to be viable it requires "close supervision of the two analysts and research subjects" (Arteaga). The primary focus for mishandle is the individuals who require dire help or consistent therapeutic care. This is on the grounds that "their circumstance compels them to search for help without having numerous choices" (Arteaga), making them edgy to discover an answer. A patient giving assent isn't helping the patient themselves, it's helping the analyst exploit their subjects who don't surmise that what they're doing isn't right since they don't have the foggiest idea about any

Respect for human dignity includes two rights; the right to self-determination and the right to full disclosure. When conducting a research study these two rights must be maintained to ensure that the participants are not coerced into participation and that they are making the choice of their own free will. Patients must be provided with all the information necessary to make an informed decision and voluntarily participate. No deception or concealed data collection can be done because it will violate the patients’ rights.

The research ethics, especially with the human subjects, is a very complex topic, and the completion of the certification opened my eyes on many aspects of research process. I learned how important it is to fully understand the research purpose and the methodology especially when selecting participants. I learned which populations are considered vulnerable, how to balance risk and potential benefits of research, and the importance of obtaining an informed, voluntary consent. I learned how important it is for researchers to ensure subjects confidentiality and privacy. Hardicre (2014) said that the research would be impossible without volunteers, and that the researchers “must act as patient advocates to ensure that every stage of the research

Our study will comply with standard ethical research procedures. We will obtain informed consent from our participants before they participate in our study. Our potential participants will be fully informed about what will happen during our study; in addition, they will understand the effects that our study will have on them and our research (Grinnell, Unrau, and Williams, 2014). We will not use bribery, deception, threats, or any other forms of coercion in order to gain participants for our study. The physical/emotional safety of the participants will come before the research; therefore, we will adhere to all ethical research procedures.

When it comes to the Guatemalan syphilis experiment and the Tuskegee experiment both were two unique experiments. Recently, the United States apologized last year for the experiment, done in Tuskegee which was meant to test the drug penicillin. However, Two years before that, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made an apology for the experiment conducted in Guatemala. With that said, the researcher rejects the case that a utilitarian could make the case that the Guatemalan syphilis study was more ethically defensible than the Tuskegee study, because the Guatemalan study had greater potential to lead to useful medical knowledge that could save many lives, while the Tuskegee study did not have any such potential (Bonnie Steinbock, 2005). I believe that neither experiment was for medical knowledge or served and medicinal purpose and that

An institutional review board is an advisory group that has been formally assigned to endorse, screen, and survey biomedical and behavioral exploration including people. They regularly direct some type of risk advantage study in an attempt to figure out or not which exploration must be completed. The reason for the audit procedure is to guarantee, both ahead of time and by intermittent survey, that proper steps are taken to secure the rights and welfare of people taking an interest as subjects in an exploration study. A key objective of IRBs is to shield human subjects from physical or mental damage, which they endeavor to do by looking into examination conventions and related materials. The convention audit surveys the morals of the examination and its routines, advances completely educated and willful cooperation by planned subjects equipped for settling on such decisions (or, if that is unrealistic, educated consent given by a suitable intermediary), and looks to expand the security of subjects.

In the case study regarding Mr. and Mrs. G, there were many questionable areas of concern regarding ethical practices and obtainment of an informed consent. As the nurse researcher, the duty to advocate for the patient is of primary concern. The first concern recognized through this case study is that of vague description of the study. As the nurse researcher, I would need to be made aware of the data collection process and the parameters upon which the research is based. Obtainment of data to be used in research must maintain patient confidentiality. Did the researchers use patient medical records, family member interviews, patient interviews or staff involvement in patient selection? Were there any HIPPA violations in the selection process? Were the subjects informed that they were being screened for participation? I would also need to assess the preliminary review of literature that is driving this particular study. What is the appropriate time to conduct a study such as this? Is the purpose of this study going to facilitate a change in patient outcomes? Awareness of the motivation for this study and the benefit that is expected to the future

Medical experimentation without consent has been an issue of debate in the US over the past few years, namely on prisoners who have no way to defend themselves against the act. In 1948, Americans ran a syphilis drug trial on Guatemalan prisoners without their consent. This issue obviously poses major ethical dilemmas and even legal implications. It is my opinion that medical experimentation without consent is a morally atrocious act and should never be done.

“Respect for human beings involves giving due scope to peoples capacity to make their own decisions. In the research context, this normally requires that participation be the result of a choice made by the participants” (NHMR, 2007, p.3).  Freegard 2012 (p.60), states that “respecting the rights of others,” includes a responsibility for Health professionals “to let others know about their rights” and that this forms the basis of an informed consent.