Internal Review Board IRB Case Studies Review Of The Six

Internal Review Board Irb Case Studiesreview Each Of The Sixirb Case

Internal Review Board (IRB) Case Studies Review each of the six IRB case studies from Yale University. Select one case and describe it in your discussion post. Indicate in your post which case number you are using. Discuss why you believe the determination was made and whether you believe it was the right or wrong decision. Support your view with at least two scholarly sources from the Ashford University Library. Your initial response should be at least 250 words. Your initial post should be at least 250 words. The case you will work with is Case 1: Payments to subjects who are substance abusers.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding research involving vulnerable populations, such as substance abusers, are complex and demand careful scrutiny by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). In the case of payments to subjects who are substance abusers (Case 1), the IRB faced the critical task of evaluating whether offering monetary compensation might unduly influence participation, thereby compromising voluntary consent and potentially exploiting this vulnerable group.

In this specific case, the IRB determined that providing payments to substance abusers could raise ethical concerns about coercion, especially given the risk that monetary incentives might sway individuals to participate against their better judgment or due to financial inducements. The IRB’s decision was likely rooted in the principle of respect for persons, ensuring that consent is voluntary and free from undue influence (Charlesworth & Small, 2008). The IRB also considered the potential for exploitation, where vulnerable populations may feel pressured to participate to alleviate financial hardship, risking their well-being or safety.

I believe the IRB’s decision was appropriate and ethically sound. It aligns with the fundamental ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report—respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). While financial compensation can motivate participation, it should not be so substantial as to compromise independent judgment, particularly among vulnerable groups. The IRB’s cautious approach reflects a commitment to protecting participants from undue influence, safeguarding their autonomy, and maintaining the integrity of the research.

Supporting this stance, scholarly literature emphasizes the importance of safeguarding vulnerable populations. For instance, Grady (2009) discusses the risks of coercion in research involving economically disadvantaged groups and recommends stringent safeguards to prevent undue influence. Similarly, Beauchamp and Childress (2013) underscore the necessity of respecting autonomy, especially in vulnerable populations that might lack full decisional capacity or face socioeconomic pressures. Thus, by limiting or carefully structuring payments, the IRB upholds ethical standards and promotes equitable and respectful research practices.

In conclusion, the IRB’s decision to restrict payments to substance abusers in this research context was justified. It prioritized participant protection, aligned with established ethical principles, and acknowledged the particular vulnerabilities of this group. This cautious approach fosters trust in research and ensures that participation remains a voluntary and respectful process.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Charlesworth, A., & Small, S. (2008). Ethical considerations in research involving vulnerable populations. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(2), 80–83.
• Grady, C. (2009). Ethical Complexity in Research with Vulnerable Populations. American Journal of Bioethics, 9(4), 39–47.
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.