Human Research-Related Ethical Issues

Caring Corrupted: The Killing Nurses of the Third Reich

Point: The nurses and physicians were actively involved in the sterilization, experimentation, and killings conducted in Nazi Germany, many doing so voluntarily after being radicalized by ideology (UTHealth Nursing, 2017).
Explanation: I believe this point is important because it emphasizes the potential for ethical corruption in the human nature. Of course the situation described in the video was that of a institutional and national scale, but even on a smaller scale, it is very easy for researchers to prioritize their interests without consideration of the human subject. Therefore, it highlights the importance of a system of checks and balances in place, which is why human experimentation typically has to undergo multiple levels of approval and have strict oversight.

Point: Consent is critical in human trials, subjects to the degree that they are capable must be given the choice and relevant information regarding potential impacts on their health or wellbeing, to agree to participate in any study (Delton Daigle, 2014).
Explanation: The subjects must be aware of what will and will not happen to them in the study. The process of consent consists of three stages of information, comprehension, and voluntariness. All three must be fully met clearly and without any potential deviations. These principles have been established after the coercion, pressure, or manipulation in human studies as was done both during the Nazi experimentation and in unethical research as the syphilis study on African Americans.

Point: The best ethical judgment in human research judgment is the one that balance the recognition of individual autonomy and protection of those with limited autonomy (Irbmed, 2011a).
Explanation: Historically, unethical human research has been conducted on those groups that were vulnerable, such as minority socioeconomic classes, prisoners, disabled, and sometimes children. In some sense, all of these groups lacked or were severely limited in their autonomy, essentially being coerced. Researchers have to constantly consider (based on existing guidelines) if their subjects have the necessary autonomy to ensure ethical behavior.

Point: Human research must give careful thought to an assessment of risks and benefits involved, with constant aim to minimize risk and not allowing brutal, inhumane or unethical treatment of subjects (Irbmed, 2011b).
Explanation: Much of groundbreaking research has its risks, but modern science has agreed that there are other means of achieving outcomes instead on needlessly endangering human subjects. It should always be a consideration for researchers dealing with humans, that even the slightest intervention can have far reaching outcomes individuals. That is why there are processes for subject selection and even if voluntarily, not everyone should be allowed to participate. For example, psychological studies should not allow those people with depression or anxieties, even minor, at the risk of worsening them and creating a snowball effect. The risks would outweigh the benefits, unless the study is specifically prepared and targeted towards people with these conditions.

Point: Committees approving studies should be diverse and representative of the academic field and community and external groups to ensure fairness and multitudes of perspectives (John Hopkins Medicine, 2015).
Explanation: In modern scientific research the institutional review boards (IRBs) serve as one of the primary means of evaluating ethical approval for human research studies. However, as known from history, if the institution is inherently unethical then so are the approval boards. Therefore, to mitigate any bias or potential narrow-view perspective, diversity among the IRB members is encouraged to promote a wide variety of ethical perspectives and recommendations for future research.

Delton Daigle. (2014). Research ethics involving human subjects [Video]. YouTube.