Human Rights and Ethics in Research the

Human Rights and Ethics in Research The nurse who observed that the research participant did not recall signing the consent papers and did not remember the details of the research project to which he had agreed to participate should have stopped the researcher from going any farther with him until it could be ascertained if the man was in a frame of mind to give legal consent.

It is the duty of the nurse who is observing the research to be aware of anything that may be detrimental to the well-being of the people she is overseeing, and also to be aware of any infringements upon their legal or human rights.

If there was a question as to whether the man really did not remember signing the consent papers and no longer remembered what the project involved, he needed to be removed from the ongoing research and questioned in a more private place regarding his memory of the consent he gave. It could be that he was just confused because of the disruption in his routine or because of the commotion surrounding him, and once he was somewhere quiet, he may have remembered.

If this were the case, he would be able to continue with the project if he so chose. However, if it was determined that he was in a legal mental capacity to offer consent, he must be asked again if he still consents, as his earlier reluctance may be indicative that he has changed his mind and just did not want to say so.

He could also have been concerned that the questioning would be hard on his wife, who had just lost her son, and did not want to put her through that; by pretending he did not remember giving consent or anything about the project, he may have been hoping to spare his wife the trauma of going through those painful emotions again. In either case, the nurse should be protective of the man's legal and human rights and should ask the researcher to stop until his consent can be confirmed.

He needs to be reminded that participation in this experiment is voluntary, and that there will be no actions taken against him if he no longer wants to participate. His wife should also be asked again if she still agrees to participate, if the reason for the man's reluctance was to protect her.

If she is in a legal mental capacity to give consent, she may still participate in the project even if her husband declines to do so, but it has to be her decision, and her decision needs to be confirmed based on her husband's actions (Manson 2007). If the husband is found to truly not remember giving consent and does not remember the details of the project, he should be removed from participation and the nurse should not allow the researcher to continue questioning him.

Again, his wife's consent and legal mental capacity to give it should be re-confirmed at this point before allowing her to proceed with the experiment, as well (Menikoff 2003). In this scenario, the research subject's human rights were not observed and there were ethical problems with the experiment. This is because the nurse on duty allowed the researcher to continue with the experiment by questioning the husband who said he did not remember signing the consent form and did not recall the details of the experiment.

Once the man had expressed those sentiments, the nurse had a legal and moral obligation to halt the proceedings until more information could be obtained. The nurse was either not aware of the legal and human rights of the research participants or did not care. The researcher was acting in an unethical manner and violating the human rights of the subject by continuing with the questioning after the man's capacity to give legal consent was called into question.

Both the nurse and the researcher were at fault here, either through ignorance or disregard of the subject's legal and human rights. There was no one acting as an advocate for the research subject's rights, and that role should have been played by the nurse, although the researcher should have been aware of those rights and acted ethically in terminating the interview until the man's legal capacity to give consent could be ascertained (Brown 2011).

In this scenario, I learned that those who are charged with protecting the rights and interests of the people in their care do not always do so. The reasons for this are many, and different according to each scenario. Sometimes, the people who should be protecting the rights of others simply do not care, are apathetic, or in some cases, may actually want to cause harm to a person against whom they hold a grudge or some other negative association.

The latter scenario is probably rare, but it does exist; the more common scenarios would be the first two. Other reasons for not protecting the rights of the people in their care could be lack of knowledge of those rights, lack of knowledge of the meaning of informed consent, bribery on the part of the researcher, or a personal interest in the research that leads to a lapse in ethics by allowing the research to continue on someone who should not be part of it at this time (Applebaum, 2001).

There are other reasons, as well, but these are the most common. I also learned that researchers do not always act with the utmost ethical standards. Sometimes, it.