Question

The men of the Tuskegee study were egregiously deceived. They were uninformed by having information withheld, and intentionally misinformed--in other words, lied to. Today there are rules regarding informed consent, whereby subjects of research and experimentation are given full disclosure in order to willingly and voluntarily agree to participate in studies and experiments. But consider this: In some cases, even though prospective subjects are given full and complete information, they do not understand the information they are being given. For example, most people do not understand the risks associated with harvesting eggs from human females (even though college campus newspapers throughout the land contain ads promising high fees to induce college women to donate their eggs). But, as a college student, you would be able to understand the risk once it had been explained to you. Now imagine that someone undertakes to do a study of egg harvesting in some third world country (in terms of poverty and education). It is plausible that for most recruits, no amount of explanation will result in genuine understanding. And yet, they still want to do it (perhaps there is a cash payment involved). If, as a researcher, you provide all available information to a potential subject, have you fulfilled your ethical duties as a researcher, and thus should you be allowed to proceed, even if you know they don't truly understand the risks? (It is a given that the information was supplied to them in their native tongue; it's not a language problem, it's a comprehension problem.) What do you think the limits of responsibility should be for ensuring that subjects understand the risks?

Answer 1

Informed consent is one of the most important ethical considerations researchers have to consider. Information regarding the research, the processes, the duration and the effects of the processes on the participant. If a standard form of information doesn’t help the participant understand the risks involved, they could be rewritten and paraphrased because it would be unethical if the participant is forced into consenting to participate in the research. So, I would explain things clearly until the participants understand things better and make their own decisions. If the decision comes from the participants, they wouldn't blame the researcher later.

Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.