Science and Professional Practice and Psychology

Questions: 1. Identify and describe one ethical issue that the authors would have considered when planning this research. 2. Outline how this issue may have been addressed to the satisfaction of a Human Research Ethics Committee what would the researchers have had to do in order to avoid this ethical issue? Answers: (1). One of the ethical issues that would have been considered by Whitworth, Loftus, Skinner, Gasson, Barker, Bucks, Thomas (2013) when planning their research is the distinctive vulnerability of the persons with mental illness, intellectual disability, and cognitive impairment as research participants such as distress and discomfort. In the journal, the authors undertook to include the persons suffering from Parkinsons disease (PD) in the research process that involved the influence of the personality traits such as extraversion and neuroticism on the health-related quality of life. As stipulated in Chapter 4.5 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, the people suffering from mental illness, intellectual disability, and cognitive impairment are entitled to participate in any research process (Nhmrc.gov.au, 2014). However, their inclusion in the research process as participants should be limited to the particular illness, disability, or impairment conditions from which they are suffering (Carlson, 2013). Unfortunately, the authors did not put the medical conditions into consideration while seeking the consent of the participants. The implication of such failure implies that the participants cannot disclose accurate information such as their current medication, the duration of the condition, the medical history, marital status, and age as required by the research team. Consequently, this leads to errors in the study data obtained through administering questionnaires and interviews. In addition, in cases where the condition is incidental or temporary, there is the risk of involving the participants in the research process at the time the condition occurs. The implication of such a scenario is that there is a possibility of variation or loss of consent. (2). The ethical issue of distinctive vulnerability of the participants may have been addressed to the satisfaction of a Human Research Ethics Committee by taking appropriate care to ensure that any burden or risk incurred in the research process is justified through adequate beneficence. Secondly, the researchers should have considered the respect of the participant by seeking their consent before the commencement of the research process. Alternatively, the consent would have been sought from the relatives in a case where the participant does not have the capacity to consent. In addition, in a case where the illness, disability, or impairment is episodic or temporary, the researchers should have attempted to seek the consent of the participants at the instant when the condition cannot interfere with the capacity of the participants to give their consent (Bosek, Savage, 2007). While seeking the consent, the participants should be engaged in a discussion about the variability or loss of t he consent. Further, a party with the capacity of understanding the procedures, risks, and merits should witness the consent of participation (Weisstub Arboleda-Flrez, 1997). Consequently, the witness should be independent of the team undertaking the research and where appropriate, the witness should have an intricate knowledge of the participant, especially concerning his/her illness, disability, or impairment. The other way that the researchers would have met that the requirements of the Human Research Ethics Committee are by considering the nature of the illness, disability, or impairment, the current treatment or medication, the distress and discomfort of the participants, and the complexity of the study. References Bosek, M. S. D., Savage, T. A. (2007).The ethical component of nursing education: Carlson, L. (2013). Research ethics and intellectual disability: broadening the debates. Chapter 4.5: People with a cognitive impairment, an intellectual disability, Weisstub, D. N., Arboleda-Flrez, J. (1997). Whitworth, S. R., Loftus, A. M., Skinner, T. C.