Informed Consent in Social Sacience - Assignment Example

? Ethics in Research Case Study Ethics in Research Case Study Scenario A is underpinned by two dominant ethical issues, including the acquisition of ethics approval and informed consent before embarking on a study concerning human subjects. Individual researchers, as well as the institution they work in, are held primarily responsible for guaranteeing the performance of the research in an ethically acceptable manner. Ethics approval is one of the most critical elements of ethical research on human subjects (Jay & Capron 2002, p. 8). On the other hand, informed consent informs the performance of ethical research by ensuring that all research subjects are well conscious of what they are getting drawn into. It is crucial for all researchers to remain committed to superior levels of professional conduct, which encompass ethically acceptable research behaviours. The purpose of this paper is to examine Scenario A, identifying and discussing the ethical dilemmas presented in a comprehensive manner. All health-related research projects, involving human subjects call for the assessment of potential risks to the subjects. Researchers have an explicit responsibility to guarantee the integrity of their studies, especially when human subjects are involved. As a consequence, institutions require researchers to uphold the organizations’ good name, as well as the vocation to which they belong. Institutions typically require researchers to observe legal, professional and ethical duties in all aspects of research (List 2008, p. 672). The purpose of ethics approval is, therefore, to guarantee that all research endeavours comply with the established guidelines, including the proper conduct of human and animal research. This means that researchers should only engage in research that adhere to accepted ethical standards, which the researchers are able to perform. It is the obligation of the researcher to accomplish and sustain superior levels of intellectual integrity in the conduct of research. Ethics approval ensures the protection of the researchers, institutions and research participants, both animal and human. Additionally, ethics approval protects the entire community from harm caused by unethically performed research (Tauber 2005, p. 18). In scenario A, the researchers failed to seek ethics approval, hence undermining the overall ethicalness of the research. Typically, ethics approval is acquired before embarking on participant recruitment or prior to commencing data collection. Ethically sound institutions do not grant ethics approval in retrospect. Formal approval notification is typically required to ascertain that ethics approval has occurred. Whenever researchers fail to seek the approval of an institution before embarking on the research, they compromise the ethicality and acceptability of all ensuing findings (Babbie 2010, p. 51). Before guaranteeing ethics approval, institutional ethics committees identify potential ethical issues and guarantee that the researchers satisfactorily address these issues. Ethics committees typically utilize accepted guidelines to assess research studies thus ensuring the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects. Essentially, ethics approval is essential to deter the incident of risk or potential harm to research participants. Another ethical dilemma inherent in the scenario concerns the issue of seeking informed consent from all study participants. This involves the process of informing participants regarding the study in order to allow them make informed decisions with regard to engaging in the research. Educating subjects regarding the research starts after the initial contact and persists for the entire duration of their engagement in the study (List 2008, p. 514). This means that all information provided to participants through recruitment letters, study description sheets and advertisements should be understandable. Therefore, researchers should steer clear of highly technical and medical terminology when educating participants on the substance and range of the research (Skovdal & Abebe 2012, p. 83). The researchers presented in the scenario failed to appreciate the significance of seeking participants’ informed consent before embarking on the research. The consent conversation should have started sufficiently prior to the beginning of study-related procedures so as to provide subjects sufficient time to reflect on the possible risks, benefits of participation. Informed consent constitutes an important element of ethical research. It refers to the process through which investigators acquire participants’ permission prior to performing research. Informed consent must be based upon a concrete appreciation of the elements, implications and ensuing consequences of the research. In order to provide ethically sound informed consent, study participants must possess sufficient reasoning abilities and must also be in possession of pertinent facts when they give their consent (Baren 2013, p. 103). Reasoning and judgement impairments, which deter people from making informed decisions, make it rather impossible for individuals to give informed consent. In such a situation, the individual or institution tasked with taking care of the impaired person is mandated with ensuring the potential participants’ wellbeing (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel 2012, p. 195). This means that the drug treatment centre was responsible for ensuring the wellbeing of heroin addicts admitted to the institution. The failure of the researchers to acquire informed consent from the study participants speaks to the inefficiency of the drug treatment centre to guarantee the safety of its patients. The process of seeking informed consent should start with the provision of general information regarding the study to potential subjects, for instance, through information sheets. The researchers then meet with interested participants to discuss the elements of the study, making use of an informed consent manuscript as the guide (Farrimond 2012, p. 154). Such a discussion encompasses information on elements such as the rationale of the research, procedures followed, and risks and benefits associated with participation. In an ethically acceptable situation, potential subjects should receive copies of the informed consent document to take home to ensure they carefully study the document and converse with the researchers, and their physicians or family and put together questions to pose during the next meeting. After reading the consent document and ensuring all their questions are answered, study participants should date and sign the consent document in order to signify their knowledge and acceptance of participation. State privacy rules deter the use and disclosure of identifiable data for research (Lakhan, Hamlat, McNamee & Laird 2009, p. 13). Overall, by failing to provide informed consent to the study participants, the researchers in the scenario failed to ensure the study’s ethicality. A serious ethical issue emerged as the researchers in scenario A failed to provide the study participants with sufficient information to provide a reasoned decision and come up with informed consent. This event, especially since it dealt with medical research could have been anticipated and deterred by the organization’s ethics committee. Since the researchers failed to acquire ethics approval before embarking on their research, they were able to disregard vital elements of ethical research, including informed consent (Dickson-Swift, James & Liamputtong 2008, p. 142). On the other hand, by failing to meet the requirement of informed consent, the researchers unduly infringed upon the participants’ human rights, thereby diminishing their essence as valuable study participants. Ultimately, the research findings discovered from the study are inadmissible hence cannot be utilized to paint a clear picture of the implications of making use of traditional Chinese health practices on the detoxification of heroin addicts. The final major ethical issue highlighted in the case study is that of deception. The researchers were deceptive when they argued that the People’s Republic of China did not mandate the provision of informed consent before embarking on a study. The requirement for informed consent is a global requirement, thus is not determined by national boundaries (Mauthner, Birch, Jessop & Miller 2002, p. 68). Deception, in research, is of significant ethical concern since it denies the study subjects an opportunity to exercise their fundamental right of independent and informed decision making. This implies that the research conducted did not conform to the ethical doctrine of Respect for persons. The implication of such deception is extremely serious since the study presented the likelihood of emotional distress and physical pain (Beauchamp & Childress 2001, p. 94). The study was experimental in nature; hence presented potential harm to the participants. On the whole, the provision of sufficient, factual information on the study to the participants could have prevented potential harm to the subjects. References Babbie, E 2010, The practice of social research, 12th edn, Wadsworth Cengage, California. Baren, J 2013, Informed consent to human experimentation, Springer Publishing Company, New York. Bazerman, MH & Tenbrunsel, AE 2012, Blind spots: Why we fail to do what's right and what to do about it, Princeton University Press, New York. Beauchamp, TL & Childress, JF 2001, Principles of biomedical ethics, Oxford University Press, New York. Dickson-Swift, V, James, EL & Liamputtong, P 2008, Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social sciences: Managing boundaries, emotions and risks, Cambridge University Press, Massachusetts. Farrimond, H 2012, Doing ethical research, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Jay, K & Capron, AM 2002, The silent world of doctor and patient, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland. Lakhan, SE, Hamlat, E, McNamee, T & Laird C 2009, "Time for a unified approach to medical ethics", Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, vol.  4, no. 3, pp. 13.  List, JA 2008, “Informed consent in social science”, Science, vol. 322, no. 5902, pp. 672.  Mauthner, M, Birch, M, Jessop, J & Miller, T 2002, Ethics in qualitative research, Sage Publications Limited, New Jersey. Skovdal, M & Abebe, T 2012, “Reflexivity and dialogue: Addressing methodological and socio-ethical dilemmas in research with HIV-affected children in East Africa”, Ethics, Policy and Environment, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 77-96. Tauber, AI 2005, Patient autonomy and the ethics of responsibility, MIT Press, Massachusetts. Read More