Mmr Research Ethics

The research proposal will be submitted for approval to Douglas College Research Ethics Board. The completed application is included in Appendix 1. Since the research involves young children who are deemed a vulnerable population, written consent will be obtained from their parents or legal guardians hereinafter referred to as “representatives”. The representatives will consent for usage of the participants’ medical records by the researchers. In particular, the researchers will screen the participants’ medical records for the information pertaining MMR vaccination and ASD diagnosis. The researchers will inform the representatives that the purpose of the research is is to determine the correlation between autism

To ensure the proposed study is academically, professionally, and ethically sound, researchers shall complete a risk assessment on the proposed method (participants, materials and design) of the study. This risk assessment will form the basis of the application to Swinburne University’s Research Ethics Office for ethical review. This application will address the risks identified with the participants used, including recruitment and informed consent, as well as data and publication arrangements.

Part I: The legal considerations would be to inform the participants that there would be no harm or risk to the participants. Since the participants are adolescents the researcher needs to obtain a secure informed consent from the parent or guardian before they participate. The researcher’s ethics are to provide full disclosure to the participants. The researcher should be open and honest to the participants regarding the study. The researcher’s ethical consideration is to protect the privacy of each participant. This can be accomplished by ensuring confidentiality and by having the data stored securely. Also, the researcher should

The purpose of this research is to find whether there is an actual link between childhood vaccines (MMR) and autism. The research also aimed to dispute the notion that MMR vaccines caused autism.

Death by diseases that can be prevented with the use of childhood vaccinations is becoming more prominent in our society today. With infant and toddler vaccinations being around for centuries this should not be so prominent in today’s society. Childhood vaccinations should be a necessity for all children because they not only protect the child that receives the vaccination but also the children that can’t receive the vaccination for heath and age restrictions. Throughout my research I have found these five articles to be the most helpful to prove my argument in my research paper, “Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide”, “Should Any Vaccines Be Required for Children?”, “Immunization in the United States: Recommendations, Barriers, and Measures to Improve Compliance”, “Vaccination: The Best Return on Investment”, and “Vaccinations and childhood type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies”. With two of the sources being popular articles and three of them being scholarly academic journals the credibility of each source differs. The article titled “Immunization in the United States: Recommendations, Barriers, and Measures to Improve Compliance” is proven to be more credible because it’s use of evidence and logos.

But the most serious risks, such as severe allergic reactions, are rarer than the diseases vaccines protect against. Other people argue that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, in particular, might cause autism. The authors refute these ideas by saying that studies have shown that there is no link between the two. Their conclusion is “To counteract the fears and misperceptions associated with vaccine campaigns, the research community and governmental agencies need to be proactive with regard to continued vaccine education, guiding public perception with rigorous scientific research on vaccine safety and emphasizing the importance of vaccination in preventing unwanted and potentially lethal infectious

Andrew Wakefield and other 12 co-authors published a study in the Lancet in 1998 that suggested a relationship between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and autism. In other words, Wakefield and associates suggested that the vaccine for MMR could predispose children to autism. The paper received massive publicity despite the researchers having used a sample size that was not representative (n=12), the research design was uncontrolled as well as conclusions being speculative (Sathyanarayana Rao & Andrade, 2011). Consequently, the vaccines for MMR plummeted since parents feared that vaccinating their children against MMR could predispose their children to autism.

Review Ethics boards should be considerate of the patient’s they are using to conduct their research by first having them fill out an agreement to participate in the research. This idea is reinforced by a field researcher who had to get the patients to sign permission slips before interviewing them and the research wouldn’t reveal their identity. The field researcher found this was an effective way to make the patients whom the experiment is being conducted on comfortable and willing to participate. It allows the patients to have a say on whether they are willing to have specific research done on them whether related to psychological reasons such as asking questions or to have biological research

Yet, it became significantly clear that there is no association between MMR vaccine and Autism. To illustrate, a study in the British Medical Journal have found that Autism rates continued to increase even though the MMR vaccine rates were not increasing (Taylor 1999). Many other studies found no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated children (Madsen 2002). Another research showed no connection between Autism, MMR vaccine and gastrointestinal disturbances (Taylor 2002). Moreover, the most recent study showed no decrease in the Autism rates after the MMR vaccine withdrawal in Japan (Honda 2005). In 2001, the Institute of Medicine reviewed all the data available for MMR-Autism link and concluded that there is no connection between the two and closed the case (IOM

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

These codes and guidelines can be condensed into 3 key areas, consent, benefice and justice. Informed consent is crucial to respecting research subject’s individuality and humanity and entails being informed, without coercion and legally be able to give consent for themselves or a dependent. Consent grows in complexity when research uses protected individuals, these include those who would be too easily persuaded to take part out of duress, such as prisoners, or are unable to understand all important information to prepare a true competent choice such as those who are mentally incapacitated or young kids. The Willowbrook hepatitis studies involved a particularly vulnerable population as not only were the subjects young institutionalized children between the ages of five to ten. Research should not directly target these protected populations as subjects when it is possible to have individuals capable of giving uncoerced and informed consent under the concept of justice. The Belmont code best describes justice as the equal distribution of benefits and burdens by five formulations; equal share, by individual need, by individual effort, by societal contribution and

Demographic information as well as information about the research process was collected through consent forms obtained from patients. Patient education regarding the treatment, interventions, procedures as well as potential risks associated with these procedures clearly disclosed and patients can participate voluntarily as evidenced by signature on an informed consent form.

In 2002, a British medical journal looked further into the MMR vaccine and bowel problems that caused developmental regression in children. The study included many children (around 500) born between 1979 and 1998. The findings were that there was no difference between regression and bowel problems before or after the introduction of the MMR vaccine. The conclusion stated that there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism. (Taylor)

The Research and Ethics Committee from the school nursing had a chance to analyze and approve the research proposal before the research begins to contact the participants. The researchers informed the participants of the contents and obtained consent from each participant. Participants were given the guarantee that confidentiality and the concept of beneficence would be respected. It was made clear to the participants that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Participation in the research was also voluntary.

and they ignore several important factors; for example, economic factors and immigration. In addition, although the study aimed to explore parents' thinking, they did not contact the fathers. For this reason, there is no doubt that credibility 'internal validity' of this research was not perfectly established. In term of rigour, there were several negative points about rigour of this research. For instance, there were no members check biases, review transcripts interpretations. Consequently, the transferability of this research has two sides. The positive aspect that researchers provided dense description and nominated informant sample. these details could be useful point to transfer this study to another context. However, MMR is a unique combination of vaccines with specific goal and impacts. Accordingly, it is not applicable for other vaccines. Also, it is not easy to find stereotypical community to Brighton with mobile population and only two economic classes community. Because it is difficult to achieve the