Case
1
1. Is leaving a
letter with the children’s belongings a good enough way of contacting parents?
Leaving a letter with the children’s
belongings is not a good way of contacting parents and although no harm was to
come to the children the chance was as they were to be exposed to some
substance that does not occur naturally and might have potentially generated
allergic reactions or some other problems in some individuals. But that is not
the point of this question as even if there was no potential of harm direct
permission from the children’s parents were to be taken in the experiment as it
is the ethical thing to do (Kodish, 2005). If there was some intention of
really notifying the parents, they could have asked for feedback from the
parents before starting the experiment. Therefore, contacting them through a
letter that was not even personally delivered and receipt made clear is clearly
a half-hearted attempt that cannot be condoned ethically.
2. Is opt-out
consent from the first phase of the study ethically acceptable, or should it be
opt-in?
The opt-out consent from the first
phase of study is not ethically acceptable as the consent was asked after the
children had been exposed to plant virus market solution. The harm to the
children that could have occurred is not the main concern but the ethical point
of view is focused upon where the children were exposed to something or
included in some study without the consent of their parents as the participants
were toddlers and thus under the age of consent. This is ethically wrong as far
as I am concerned as the permission of the participant must be taken before
they are included in some study for scientific purpose (Lo Piccolo and Thomas,
2009). The study should have been an opt-in as they made sure that the parents
received the letter they sent or given feedback after the receipt of the letter
allowing their children to be part of the experiment.
3. Is the first
phase of the study really ethically different from the second phase?
The first phase of the study is
ethically different from the second phase as the sample was to be taken from
the children’s hand and their consent or their parents in this case was
necessary to retrieve it. But just because the first phase could be conducted
without any personal contact does not mean that it should not have required
permission from the parents (Kodish, 2005). The ethical point of view focuses
on the question whether it should be done and not on whether it could be done.
So, it is ethically wrong to conduct the first phase as it was done by
informing the parents through a vague letter where the children at their age could
not have asked or told their parents about it. Therefore, although the first
phase of the experiment could be done without personal contact it should have
required permission from the parents to conduct. In this case both of the
phases of the study are the same as they both should require permission
(Oliver, 2010).
4. Was parental
consent needed at all?
The parental consent was definitely
needed as the experiment even though the first phase did not require any
personal contact the children were clearly studied without their consent which
in this case revert to the parental consent s all of the subjects were toddlers
and thus minors. The risk to the children is not the matter of concern from the
ethical standpoint as any harmless observation for research purposes should be
preceded by the consent of the people included in the study (Pimple, 2008).
Therefore, even if the test was benign and did not require any personal contact
for the most part it should have required the permission of the subject from an
ethical standpoint. So we can definitely state that yes the consent of the
subjects is necessary in the case of any study and the unaware participants of
this study were minor so parental consent was must have for the commencement of
the study (Smith Iltis, 2006).
No comments:
Post a Comment