Upholding the convention on the rights of the child: a quandary in cyberspace

Put in place to protect the rights of the child, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a set of non-negotiable standards. A core principle underpinning the Convention is the child's right to participate fully in social arenas and to access sources of social support without excessive interference. Juxtaposing this is the right of the child to be shielded from harm, abuse and exploitation. Over the past several decades the Internet has emerged as a fast and easily accessible medium for people to connect and communicate. While the Internet provides children with a source of support through chat rooms, online communities and social networking sites, just as equally it can expose vulnerable children to predatory and deviant individuals exacerbating the potential for harm. Upholding the Convention in cyberspace is a challenge. The Internet is not owned or regulated by any governing body and accountability is difficult to enforce. This article discusses some of the difficulties of upholding the Convention online and provides recommendations for policy-makers to protect children as they participate in cyberspace.

On the Problems of Mixing RCTs with Qualitative Research: The Case of the MRC Framework for the Evaluation of Complex Healthcare Interventions

In the perceived hierarchy of research designs, the results from randomized controlled trials are considered to provide the highest level of evidence. Indeed these trials have been upheld as the gold standard in research. The benefits and limitations of the randomized controlled trial as a method of evaluating the effectiveness of healthcare interventions are presented. The article then examines the different levels of complexity within healthcare interventions and the problems this poses in determining effectiveness. In an effort to provide a solution to this problem, the Medical Research Council produced a framework to assist investigators to develop and evaluate complex healthcare interventions. The framework is described with reference to an example of implementing and evaluating protocols for weaning patients in the intensive care unit. The framework is critiqued on the basis that it involves an ambiguous or contradictory ontology, which fails to articulate the relationship between the positivism of randomized controlled trials with the relativism of qualitative approaches. It is concluded that the use of realist strategies in combination with randomized controlled trials provides the most coherent solution to this quandary