Select A National Healthcare Agency And Discuss Its Ethics ✓ Solved

Select a national healthcare agency and discuss its ethical practices in research

Identify the practice along with a companion theory. Are these practices enough to ensure safe and ethical research? If not, what should be added to them? Limit your responses to a maximum of three pages, not including title and reference pages. Be sure to provide scholarly support for your discussion. Several (3-5) scholarly references should be cited for this assignment. Be sure to properly cite all references. Apply critical thinking skills within the write-up for this assignment.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The ethical conduct of research within healthcare institutions is critical for safeguarding participants' rights, ensuring scientific integrity, and maintaining public trust. Among various federal agencies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stands out for its comprehensive guidelines and practices aimed at promoting ethical research. This paper analyzes the ethical practices employed by the NIH in research and experimentation, discusses the theoretical frameworks that underpin these practices, evaluates their adequacy, and suggests potential improvements.

Ethical Practices of the NIH and Companion Theories

The NIH, as a prominent federal agency overseeing biomedical research, adheres to the principles outlined in the Belmont Report, which emphasizes respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Respect for persons mandates informed consent, beneficence requires minimization of harm, and justice ensures equitable selection of research subjects. These principles form the backbone of NIH's ethical framework.

Complementing the Belmont principles, Kantian ethics also influence NIH practices. Kant’s emphasis on autonomy and moral duty guides the agency’s strict adherence to informed consent processes, ensuring participants voluntarily agree to participate with full understanding (Kant, 1785). Moreover, utilitarian theories support the pursuit of research that maximizes overall benefits while minimizing risks, aligning with NIH's emphasis on beneficence (Mill, 1863).

The NIH enforces rigorous Institutional Review Board (IRB) processes, mandating ethical review of research protocols to uphold these principles. These practices include ongoing oversight, community engagement, and strict confidentiality protocols, forming a comprehensive ethical safeguard (Resnik, 2015).

Are These Practices Sufficient?

While the NIH's practices are robust, several limitations threaten their sufficiency. For instance, informed consent, though central, may be compromised in vulnerable populations such as children, cognitively impaired individuals, or economically disadvantaged groups. These groups may lack full understanding or feel coerced, challenging the principle of respect for persons (Lambert & Glacken, 2011).

Additionally, the complexity of modern biomedical research, including genomic studies and personalized medicine, raises challenges around data privacy and potential for misuse. Existing frameworks may lack explicit safeguards against such emerging risks, thus compromising beneficence and justice (Waller & Repko, 2008).

Furthermore, cultural differences may impact perceptions of autonomy and consent, suggesting that the practice should be adapted to accommodate diverse populations to maintain ethical rigor (Brudney, 2009). Ethical oversight mechanisms should be expanded to include contextual considerations for vulnerable or marginalized groups.

Recommended Enhancements to Ethical Practices

To enhance the current practices, the NIH should incorporate several additional measures:

• Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Engage communities directly in the research design and consent processes to ensure culturally sensitive and ethically appropriate practices (Miller & Wertheimer, 2011).
• Enhanced informed consent procedures: Use multimedia tools, extended discussions, and comprehension assessments to ensure true understanding, especially in vulnerable populations.
• Data privacy safeguards: Implement advanced cybersecurity measures and strict data access controls to protect participant information, aligning with evolving technological challenges (Dickman, 2000).
• Periodic ethical audits: Conduct regular audits and updates to the ethical protocols to keep pace with scientific advances and societal changes.

These recommendations align with the companion theories discussed earlier, reinforcing respect for autonomy, promoting beneficence, and ensuring justice in expanding and modern ethical frameworks.

Conclusion

The NIH's ethical practices, grounded in foundational principles and theories, are largely effective in promoting safe and ethical research. However, ongoing challenges necessitate continuous enhancement of these frameworks to adequately address emerging risks and vulnerabilities. By adopting measures such as community engagement, improved consent procedures, and technological safeguards, the agency can strengthen its ethical oversight, ensuring research continues to benefit society without compromising individual rights.

References

• Brudney, D. (2009). Choosing for another: beyond autonomy and best interests. The Hastings Center Report, 39(2), 31-38.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Lambert, V., & Glacken, M. (2011). Engaging with children in research: Theoretical and practical implications of negotiating informed consent/assent. Nursing Ethics, 18(6).
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report.
• Resnik, D. B. (2015). Institutional Review Boards and the Protecting of Human Subjects in Research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(10), 836-841.
• Waller, B. N., & Repko, R. A. (2008). Informed consent: Good medicine, dangerous side effects. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 17(1), 66-74.
• Miller, F. G., & Wertheimer, A. (2011). The fair transaction model of informed consent: An alternative to autonomous authorization. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 21(3), 201-218.
• Dickman, R. L. (2000). Bending the rules to get a medication. American Family Physician, 61(5), 1563.
• Resnik, D. B. (2015). Institutional Review Boards and the Protecting of Human Subjects in Research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(10), 836-841.