lecture 17 Flashcards
(20 cards)
history of ethics
- consent was not always considered necessary
- when it was sought, was often not fully, informed or voluntary
- Hippocratic Oath: circa 275 AD, historical expression of medical ethics
- Thomas Percival’s Medical Ethics, 1803: patients have the right to the truth, but if doctor thought lying or withholding info was more effective, they should do so
nuremberg code
- WWII saw a variety of “medical experiments” carried out on reluctant participants
- following the Nuremberg trials, a set of 10 guidelines were established
included: consent, do no harm, beneficence - some issues remained: wasn’t necessarily adopted
tuskegee syphilis study
- U.S public health service, 1932-1972
- 600 poor, rural African men
- free medical care, meals, burial insurance
- never told they had syphilis, never treated for it
- by 1947 it was well known that penicillin could be used to treat/cure it
other shocking studies
- Milgram study: think you’re shocking someone
- little albert: afraid of anything fluffy and white
- monster study: stuttering behavior stopped talking
- third wave project: showing class what Germany was like during Hilter’s time
- Stanford prison experiment: people being either prisoner or guard
why are these problematic
- American Psychological Association Ethics Guidelines
- doesn’t follow guidelines
concern for welfare
-maximize benefits
-minimize possible harm
-potential risks:
physical harm ex) sleep deprivation
stress/distress ex) negative feedback
-most research considered “minimal risk” (no more than would be typically experienced)
clinical research
- special concern for treatment of disorders
- “clinical equipoise”
- can you provide an inferior treatment to a control group? No
informed consent
- Why are you doing the experiment
- purpose of the research - What are you going to do to me?
- procedures that will be used - What are the consequences of participating
- risks and benefits
- compensation/cost - When can I leave?
- participation is voluntary - Who do I talk to if I have concerns?
- contact info - Where do I sign?
- agree to part take - Free from coercion
- can’t be forced to do research
waiving informed consent
consent can be waived if all of the following apply:
- no more than minimal risk
- lack of consent is unlikely to adversely affect welfare
- impossible or impracticable to carry out research with consent is sought
- when possible, participants will be debriefed and given the chance to withdraw their data
- the research doesn’t involved any clinical interventions
informed consent of vulnerable populations
- vulnerable populations
- need to obtain “assent”: need to verbally agree
ex) children, older adults, people with disabilities, prisoners
confidentially
not releasing your personal data (and private info) to others without your permission
-what kind of info would you not want released?
-if you knew your data was available to others, how might you respond differently?
-Confidentiality vs anonymity
subject –>research –>data
deception
- concealing and or misleading participants about the experiment
- must be justified, not harmful
a) passive: leave info out; omitting info about the purpose of the experiment
b) active: intentionally misleading participants about the experiment; telling them incorrect info
debriefing
- explanation of the purpose of the study
- particularly if deception was used!
- often includes hypothesis and predictions
- minimal risk
facebook and “emotional contagion”
- more negative posts on feed are more likely to post neg things themselves and vise versa
- they did they by manipulating newsfeeds
- Facebook data use policy, to which every user agrees, had informed users that their data might be used for such research purposes
- ethical issues:
ethics in publication
a) Plagiarism: taking credit for others people’s ideas
b) Data fabrication: changing or manipulating data
safeguards against plagiarism and data fabrication:
1. Replication of study
2. Peer review
3. Open data movement: submit raw data
research involving animals
- In support of non-human animals’ experiments. They will produce such great benefits to humanity that they are morally acceptable.
- Opposed to non-human animal experiments. The level of suffering and number of animals involved are both so high that the benefits to humanity don’t provide moral justification
Canadian council on animals (CCAC)
- scientists, vets, community reps
- inspects all animal facilities
- can revoke funding immediately
replacement
-replace experiments on animals with alternative techniques
refinement
-refine the experiments or the way the animals are cared for so as to reduce their suffering
reduction
- reduce the number of animals used in experiments
- power calculations, data sharing
