Bmc Med Ethics
-
As sharing and secondary research use of biospecimens increases, IRBs and researchers face the challenge of protecting and respecting donors without comprehensive regulations addressing the human subject protection issues posed by biobanking. Variation in IRB biobanking policies about these issues has not been well documented. ⋯ Unclear or divergent policies regarding biospecimen research among IRBs may constitute a barrier to advancing genetic studies and to inter-institutional collaboration, given different institutional requirements for human subjects protections.
-
UK-based research conducted within a healthcare setting generally requires approval from the National Research Ethics Service. Research ethics committees are required to assess a vast range of proposals, differing in both their topic and methodology. We argue the methodological benchmarks with which research ethics committees are generally familiar and which form the basis of assessments of quality do not fit with the aims and objectives of many forms of qualitative inquiry and their more iterative goals of describing social processes/mechanisms and making visible the complexities of social practices. We review current debates in the literature related to ethical review and social research, and illustrate the importance of re-visiting the notion of ethics in healthcare research. ⋯ We conclude that a 'one size fits all' standardisation of ethical procedures and approach to ethical review acts against the production of knowledge about healthcare and dramatically restricts what can be known about the social practices and conditions of healthcare. Our central argument is that assessment of ethical implications is important, but that the current paradigm does not facilitate an adequate understanding of the very issues it aims to invigilate.
-
In the UK, higher education and health care providers share responsibility for educating the workforce. The challenges facing health practice also face health education and as educators we are implicated, by the way we design curricula and through students' experiences and their stories. This paper asks whether ethics education has a new role to play, in a context of major organisational change, a global and national austerity agenda and the ramifications of disturbing reports of failures in care. It asks: how would it be different if equal amounts of attention were given to the conditions in which health decisions are made, if the ethics of organisational and policy decisions were examined, and if guiding collaborations with patients and others who use services informed ethics education and its processes? ⋯ This paper proposes that ethics education has a new contribution to make, in supporting and promoting ethical practice - as it is defined in and by the everyday actions and decisions of practitioners and people who need health services. Ethics education that promotes moral agency, rather than problem solving approaches, would explore not only clinical problems, but also the difficult and contested arenas in which they occur. It would seek multiple perspectives and would begin with places and people, and their priorities. It would support students to locate their practice in imperfect global contexts, and to understand how individual and collective forms of power can influence healthcare quality.
-
Health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR); therefore, an awareness of the empirical costs and benefits of animal research is an important issue for HCW. We aim to determine what health-care-workers consider should be acceptable standards of AR methodology and translation rate to humans. ⋯ HCW have high expectations for the methodological quality of, and the translation rate to humans of findings from AR. These expectations are higher than the empirical data show having been achieved. Unless these areas of AR significantly improve, HCW support of AR may be tenuous.
-
Many commentators call for a more ethical approach to planning for influenza pandemics. In the developed world, some pandemic preparedness plans have already been examined from an ethical viewpoint. This paper assesses the attention given to ethics issues by the Ghana National Integrated Strategic Plan for Pandemic Influenza (NISPPI). ⋯ Our analysis reveals a lack of consideration of ethics by the NISPPI. We contend that, while the plan's content and fundamental assumptions provide support for implementation of the delineated public health actions, its consideration of ethical issues is poor. Deficiencies include a failure to incorporate guidelines that ensure fair distribution of scarce resources and a lack of justification for delineated procedures. Until these deficiencies are recognized and addressed, Ghana runs the risk of rolling out unjust and ethically indefensible actions with real negative effects in the event of a pandemic. Soliciting inputs from the public and consultation with ethicists during the next revision of the NISPPI will be useful in addressing these issues.