Relevant Laws And Legal Authority

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

When comparing Marcia Angell, Harold Varmus and David Satcher’s arguments, their differences primarily stem from how they approach the Belmont principles. Beginning with Autonomy, Marcia Angell believes Third World research violates this principle because these populations are being viewed and respected differently than individuals living in the First World. On the other hand, Harold Varmus and David Satcher argue each individual is being respected because “persons in developing countries deserve research that addresses their needs” (Varmus and Satcher 1997). Furthermore, Angell argues the principle of Beneficence is not being followed because some research participants are being harmed by not receiving the treatment they need. Conversely,

Based from this experiments, The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research was submitted in April 18,1979 to …….? (“Impact,” n.d.).

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

Although the proposal’s title briefly explains its purpose, there is a lot more written into this bill than one first realizes. Evolving just one year after the book, it proposes changes that would help better strengthen the basic protections for the valuable research dealing with human life in any way. The policy introduces new perspective on the expanded pool of research of the 21st century-one that may no longer fully protect the human

This provides a guideline that ensures that researchers minimize the amount of risk a study may impose to a participant. When planning a study, it is also important that each of the participants are provided with a sense of security and not placed at a disadvantage. When participants enter into a study, a level of trust is established, and their identities and the information they provide must be protected and never be used against them or exploited for any reason.

In 1974, the National Research Act was signed into law. This led to the creation of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of the Biomedical and Behavioral Research. This policy change involved new principles to govern research conduct and ways through which these principles were to be followed. Also in addition, laws were passed in 1974 that required researchers to get adequate, voluntary and informed consent from all persons taking part in studies done or funded by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW). A law was also made to make it a requirement that all researches involving human subjects be reviewed by Institutional Review Boards.

Science, medicine, and psychology are powerful tools capable of increasing human understanding of the world, curing diseases, or assisting individuals in living more fulfilling lives. The potential for good is drastic; however, a potential for hurt exists as well. Although history is full of stories documenting the positives of research, events of scientific research hurting individuals still haunt history. These events, including the Holocaust and the Tuskegee experiments, demonstrate instances where scientific research on human beings is clearly unethical and damaging. Due to horrific events such as these, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research published the Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, or Belmont Report, in 1979.

The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved December 13, 2011, from hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html

Failure to protect subject’s personal information, is an example of not complying the above two principles in the research industry. Researchers are in a position of dealing with a great deal of very personal information that their participants have agreed to disclose. Depending on the type of study, personal identifiers such as names, birthdates, places of residence etc. may or may not have to be collected. In situations where these data are collected, researchers may take several steps to ensure the confidentiality of their participants’

Now we have the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki to guide researchers in the most ethical direction when they are conducting their research for studies. Luckily now researchers have to basically write out their entire plan throughout the study step by step. They must write out any way that the human subject may be harmed, what they will do if someone is harmed, any potential costs, and much more. Once all of this is written out researchers then have to get their study approved before they can move forward with their study (Neutens & Rubinson, 2014). The steps that have to be taken to conduct research may seem like a lot, however, it may save a lot of time and energy in court if something happens to go wrong during the trial.

The first ethical principle stated by the Belmont Report is respect for persons. “Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection” (The Belmont Report). The researcher must respect the subjects decisions and be obliged to allow them to take part of the experiment voluntarily. The second

Research has always been an important aspect in developing any type of advanced healthcare system. Nevertheless, the use of humans makes these studies controversial. The controversy is over how every time human specimens are used their rights were not correctly protected, which caused their bodies to be mutilated. This misconduct is present in both the case dealing with Henrietta Lacks and the men that participated in the Tuskegee syphilis trials. When studies similar to these become public society being to have a scud view of research studies as well as healthcare overall. Resulting from this nurses need to practice proper ethics when working on their patients.

Several historical events played a vital role in what has evolved to how we conduct research today and just as important, how the participants of such research are shielded and protected against the consequences that may be experienced as a result of these studies. We live in a world that is continuously changing and as we move forward, it is past experiences that influence how things are done in the present, and what may become in the future. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) exists to protect research subjects and ensure their rights are safeguarded and protected. This paper will discuss the role of the IRB and the protection of human subjects, the dilemma of societal advancements versus its cost on human subjects and the role of leadership in the IRB.

The study followed the guidelines from the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Queensland Research Ethics Committee, permission to conduct this research was approved by the Queensland Department of Education and Training (Trim ref: 12/266005), and informed consent was obtained prior to commencing data collection efforts.