Ethical dilemmas for clinical psychologists in conducting qualitative research

Clinical psychologists often use qualitative methods to explore sensitive topics with vulnerable individuals, yet there has been little discussion of the specific ethical issues involved. For clinicians conducting qualitative research, there are likely to be ethical dilemmas associated with being both a researcher and a practitioner. We argue that this overarching issue frames all other ethical issues raised. This article provides an overview of the range of ethical issues that have been discussed in general in relation to qualitative research and considers the specific nature of these in relation to the discipline of clinical psychology. Such issues will be exemplified by reference to some of our own research and practice and the extant literature. We conclude with some suggestions for good practice, although our aim is to trigger debate rather than to establish prescriptive guidelines.

On Being Let Loose in the Field: The Execution of Professional Ethics

In recent years concerns over litigation and the trend towards close monitoring of academic activity has seen the effective hijacking of research ethics by university managers and bureaucrats. This can effectively curtail cutting edge research as perceived ‘safe’ research strategies are encouraged. However, ethics is about more than research governance. Ultimately, it seeks to avoid harm and to increase benefits to society. Rural development debate is fairly quiet on the question of ethics, leaving guidance to professional bodies. This study draws on empirical research that examined the lives of migrant communities in Northern Ireland. This context of increasingly diverse rural development actors provides a backdrop for the way in which the researcher navigates through ethical issues as they unfold in the field. The analysis seeks to relocate ethics from being an annoying bureaucratic requirement to one where it is inherent to rigorous and professional research and practice. It reveals how attention to professional ethics can contribute to effective, situated and reflexive practice, thus transforming ethics to become an asset to professional researchers.

Evidence and Ethics in Infrastructure Planning

Motivated by criticism of the new infrastructure planning process, the paper considers the role of the Infrastructure Planning Commission and National Policy Statements. Drawing upon lessons learnt from other jurisdictions where similar legislation, structures and procedures have been operational for some time, emerging issues regarding policy, practice and the role of participants are considered through an empirical investigation, in the context of professional ethics, legitimacy and evidence-based decision making. Remedies are suggested to potential operational problems and issues of structural concern are identified which have ramifications for wider planning practice.

On being a good nurse: reflections on the past and preparing for the future

On being a good nurse: reflections on the past and preparing for the future. The objectives of this paper include reflecting on the attributes of the ‘good’ nurse in the past, outlining thematically the essential attributes (virtues) required by the ‘good’ nurse today and presenting an original four- point framework for ethics in practice. While there is no doubt that nurses in the past were highly professional, the culture within which they practiced tended to stifle the emergence of autonomy, assertiveness, advocacy and accountability. An original table of contemporary attributes, which is congruent with a neo Aristotelian virtue ethical approach, is arranged in themes of Intellectual and Practical Attributes, Dispositional Attributes and Moral Attributes. A framework for professional practice, the ‘Four As’ is then extrapolated from these themes. These four key professional attributes, autonomy, advocacy, accountability and assertiveness, along with the virtues listed in the themes, exemplify the ‘good’ nurse and are identified as the linchpins of modern professional ethics and good conduct.

Healthcare professional experiences and attitudes on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials.

Objectives: To investigate the knowledge and views of a range of healthcare professionals (consultant paediatricians, general practitioners (GPs), community pharmacists and paediatric nurses) regarding the use of unlicensed/off-label medicines in children and the participation of children in clinical trials.

Methods: A regional study in which a survey instrument with 39 items was issued to 500 randomly selected GPs, all community pharmacists (n?=?512), 50 hospital consultants and 150 paediatric nurses in Northern Ireland.

Results: Approximately half (46.5%) of the 1,212 healthcare professionals approached responded to the questionnaire. The majority of respondents indicated their familiarity with the term unlicensed (82.9%) or off-label (58.6%) prescribing with the most frequently quoted reason for such prescribing being younger age (33.6%). Apart from community pharmacists, most respondents reported having gained their knowledge through personal experience. Even though a large percentage of respondents expressed concerns about the safety (77.8%) or efficacy (87.9%) of unlicensed/off-label prescribing in children, only 30.7% reported informing parents/guardians of these concerns on the use of such medicines in children. In addition, only 56% of respondents believed that unlicensed/off-label medicines should undergo clinical trials in children. Overall, 28.4% of respondents (20.1% of GPs, 41.4% of community pharmacists, 27.7% of paediatric nurses and 94% of consultant paediatricians) indicated their willingness to be actively involved in, and recruit their patients for paediatric clinical research.

Conclusion: The use of unlicensed and off-label medicines remains a major issue in paediatric medicine. Until such times as more licensed medicines are available for children, clear guidance should be developed to allow consistency in practice across the spectrum of healthcare professionals who are involved with such medicines in their routine practice.

A systematic review protocol on the use of online learning and blended learning for teaching clinical skills to undergraduate health professional students

Aim: This paper is a review protocol that will be used to identify, critically appraise and synthesize the best current evidence relating to the use of online learning and blended learning approaches in teaching clinical skills in undergraduate nursing.

Background: Although previous systematic reviews on online learning versus face to face learning have been undertaken (Cavanaugh et al. 2010, Cook et al. 2010), a systematic review on the impact of online learning and blended learning for teaching clinical skills has yet to be considered in undergraduate nursing. By reviewing nursing students’ online learning experiences, systems can potentially be designed to ensure all students’ are supported appropriately to meet their learning needs.

Methods/Design: The key objectives of the review are to evaluate how online-learning teaching strategies assist nursing students learn; to evaluate the students satisfaction with this form of teaching; to explore the variety of online-learning strategies used; to determine what online-learning strategies are more effective and to determine if supplementary face to face instruction enhances learning. A search of the following databases will be made MEDLINE, CINAHL, BREI, ERIC and AUEI. This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative research.

Conclusion: This review intends to report on a combination of student experience and learning outcomes therefore increasing its utility for educators and curriculum developers involved in healthcare education.

Offshoring Clinical Trials: The Mutable Ethics, Weak Protections and Vulnerable Subjects of EU Law

In this paper I engage with science and technology studies work on pharmaceuticalisation to explore how European Union (EU) law helps to produce and support the preference for pharmaceutical responses in public health governance, while authorising the production of vulnerable subjects through the growing off-shoring of clinical trials. Drawing on the analysis of legal and policy documents, I demonstrate how EU law allows and legitimates the use of data procured from vulnerable subjects abroad for market authorisation and corporate profitability at home. This is possible because the EU has (de)selected international ethical frameworks in order to support the continued and growing use of clinical trials data from abroad. This has helped to stimulate the revision of international ethical frameworks in light of market needs, inscribing EU public health law within specific politics (that often remained obscured by the joint workings of legal and technological discourses). I suggest that law operates as part of a broader ‘technology’ – encompassing ethics and human rights discourses – that functions to optimise life through resort to market reasoning. Law is thereby reoriented, instrumentalised and deployed as part of a broader project aimed at (re)defining and limiting the boundaries of the EU's responsibility for public health, including the broader social production of public health problems and the unequal global order that the EU represents and helps to depoliticise and perpetuate. Overall, this limits the EU's responsibility and accountability for these failures, as well as another: the weak and mutable protections and insecure legacies for vulnerable trial subjects abroad.

Clinical Trials Abroad: The Marketable Ethics, Weak Protections and Vulnerable Subjects of EU Law

This chapter explores how the EU is a largely overlooked exporter of normative power through its facilitation and use of clinical trials data produced abroad for the marketing of safe pharmaceuticals at home; a move that helps to foster the growing resort to pharmaceuticals as a fix for public health problems. This is made possible by the EU’s (de)selection of international ethical frameworks in preference to the international technical standards it co-authors with other global regulators. Clinical trials abroad underscore how ethics are contingent and revisable in light of market needs, producing weak protections for the vulnerable subjects of EU law. I argue that these components and effects of the regime are ultimately about that which undergirds, shapes and directs regulatory design. That is, I point to the use, infiltration, perpetuation and extension of market-oriented ideas, values and rationalities into formally non-market domains like biomedical knowledge production and public health. I explain how these are central to efforts at producing and legitimating the EU, its related imagined socio-political order based on a more innovative, profitable and competitive pharmaceutical sector in order to foster economic growth, jobs and prosperity, and with them the project of European integration. ‘Bioethics as risk’ is highlighted as a way to reshape and redirect the regulatory regime in ways that are more consistent with the spirit and letter of the ethical standards (and through them the human rights) the EU claims to uphold.

The U.N. convention on the rights of the child: Relevance and application to pediatric clinical bioethics

This article provides an overview of the relevance and import of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to child health practice and pediatric bioethics. We discuss the four general principles of the CRC that apply to the implementation of all rights contained in the document, the right to health articulated in Article 24, and the important position ascribed to parents in fulfilling the rights of their children. We then examine how the CRC is implemented and monitored in law and practice. The CRC and associated principles of child rights provide strategies for rights-based approaches to clinical practice and health systems, as well as to policy design, professional training, and health services research. In light of the relevance of the CRC and principles of child rights to children’s health and child health practice, it follows that there is an intersection between child rights and pediatric bioethics. Pediatric bioethicists and child rights advocates should work together to define this intersection in all domains of pediatric practice.