Ethical Conduct of Researchpower point from this document, 1.docx

Ethical Conduct of Research
power point from this document, 15 slides
Introduction
Depending on the context of the study, researchers often
encounter ethical dilemmas that are associated with respect for
privacy, establishment of honest and open interactions, and
avoidance of misrepresentation. From an ethical standpoint,
such challenging circumstances may surface if researchers are
grappling with conflicting issues and have to choose between
different methodological approaches in complex circumstances.
In such circumstances, disagreements among different
components including participants, researchers, researchers’
disciplines, the financing organization, and the society might be
inevitable. Therefore, there are numerous ethical concerns that
should be taken into account when undertaking studies that deal
with human subjects. Understanding ethical principles can guide
researchers to conduct studies that safeguard the wellbeing of
human subjects.
Overview of the Research
In a research work titled
Resilience of People Living with HIV/AIDS in Indonesia: a
Phenomenological Study
, Kumboyono et al. (2018) observe that HIV/ AIDS is among the
most prevalent and expanding communicable diseases on the
planet. The number of individuals who are diagnosed with
HIV/AIDS continues to skyrocket every year in Indonesia and
other parts of the world. According to Kumboyono et al. (2018),
individuals who suffer from HIV/AIDS often plunge themselves

into a series of crises, which indicate the challenges of living
with the chronic pathological condition. As such, resilience is
one distinct phenomenon that is common among persons living
with the diseases Indonesia, a pattern that indicates the results
of current health management and expectations of HIV/AIDS
patients for better and improved health outcomes. In light of
this concern, Kumboyono et al. (2018) undertook a study that
sought to examine the mechanism of resilience in Indonesian
people living with HIV/AIDS and the factors that influence
their specific mechanisms.
Using qualitative phenomenological design, the researchers
sampled a total of 27 people living with HIV/AIDS from a
primary health care institution in Malang City, East Java,
Indonesia. The participants were selected from different
socioeconomic, gender, and sexual orientations. The researchers
informed participants about the conduct and processes involved
in the study, resulting in their consent to participate in the
interview process. The findings of the study indicated that the
diagnosis of HIV/AIDS reflects the onset of psychological and
social distress. Moreover, Kumbomoyo et al. (2018) found that
the spiritual response that follows diagnosis is a state that is
characterized by crises. As a consequence, the coping strategies
and understanding of life by HIV patients is a definite sign on
resilience. Based on these findings, Kumbomoyo et al. (2018)
infer that HIV/AIDS is a chronic infection that has the potential
to induce the unique mechanism of resilience within the
Indonesian social system. Therefore, future health and
management of persons living with HIV/ AIDS will be needed
to enhance and encourage this strategy to guide persons living
with HIV into a more comfortable and healthy way of life.
Ethical Issues in Research
The relationships and interactions established between the
researcher and participants in a study can potentially generate a

wide range of varying ethical issues. While ethical codes,
policies and principles are highly significant and beneficial,
like any set of norms, they do not cater for all situations. Thus,
they often have a high potentiality of conflicting. Nonetheless,
the vast majority of decisions often entail the straightforward
application of ethical codes and practices. Ethics is one of the
most important issues that are commonly mentioned by
educators in the scientific community. Ethical misconducts most
commonly stem from environmental and individual causes. For
instance, when people who are morally weak or unaware of the
rules participate in research, ethical violations are bound to
occur. Thus, many significant forms of the ethical deviations
that are observed in many scientific studies are attributed to the
fact that some researchers are oblivious of the ethical norms of
scientific research.
Protection of Human Rights
The most important ethical principles in research focus on
protecting human rights when dealing with human subjects.
Principles of protection of human rights during research
emerged out of a dark history that was littered with accounts of
abuses undertaken in the name of medical research. One of the
most dreadful of these atrocities were undertaken by the Nazi
physicians who utilized convicts for human experimentation
(Avasthi et al. 2013). The unearthing of these experiments sent
ripples of shock across the world, a situation that resulted in the
development of the Nuremberg Code to deter recurrence of
similar episodes. The Nuremberg Code was the first
international code of ethics in clinical research that laid down
the guidelines for research dealing with human subjects. This
policy made laid down principles, guidelines and standards to
be followed by researchers and make voluntary consent
essential, allowed subjects withdraw from the experimentation
at any time, banned experiments that could lead to major
injuries or fatalities of the subjects, and made it mandatory to

have preclinical data prior to the experimentation of humans.
However, the Nuremberg Code failed to end unethical practices
conducted by certain researchers (Avasthi et al. 2013). As a
consequence, a collection of guidelines was developed by the
18th World Medical Association General Assembly, also
referred to as the Declaration of Helsinki.
The Helsinki Declaration had a collection of principles, which
emphasize on informed consent, confidentiality of data,
vulnerable populations, and requirements of a protocol,
including the scientific justifications for the study. All
researches had to be reviewed based on these standards by the
ethics committee for a research to be declared as ethically fit
(Avasthi et al. 2013). However, it is during the time of the
Helsinki Declaration that other major scandals continued such
as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment in the United States. This
malpractice raised concerns in the ethics community, thereby
resulting in the establishment of the Belmont Report in 1979.
The Belmont Report established the modern regulations and
human rights principles associated with research dealing with
human subjects in the United States and other parts of the world
(Avasthi et al. 2013). Nonetheless, with the growing interest in
pharmaceutical, health, and psychological research in the
developing and the underdeveloped nations, the Council for
International Organization of Medical Sciences, in collaboration
with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other health
researchers designed the International Ethical Guidelines for
Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects in 1982
(Avasthi et al. 2013). Thereafter, other professional research
organizations such as the American Psychological Organization
(APA), have designed similar standards that relate to protection
of human rights in studies that deal with human subjects.
The Five Human Rights that Must Be Protected
There are five cardinal ethical principles that reflect the five

human rights that must be protected during research. These
principles include: nonmaleficence, beneficence, respect for
autonomy, justice, as well as right to self-determination. The
principle of nonmaleficence states that the researcher has an
obligation to avoid infliction of harm on human subjects in a
study. This principle is closely interlinked with the maxim
primum non nocere
(‘first do no harm’). The principle of nonmaleficence prohibits
killing, causing pain or suffering, incapacitating, and causing an
offense on the human subject during research. Therefore, this
principle encourages researchers to act in ways that do not
cause physical or mental harm on the research participants.
More precisely, the principle states that researchers should not
cause avoidable or intentional harm. This should incorporate
avoidance of any possible risks associated with harm (Jahn,
2013). Researchers should avoid intentional and unintentional
violations of this ethical principle. For instance, a researcher
does not necessarily intend to harm in order to violate this
principle. As a matter of fact, knowingly or unknowingly
subjecting a research participant to unnecessary risk amounts to
violation of the principle of nonmaleficense.
The principle of nonmaleficense has been applied to this study
in many ways. One of the primary focuses of the study was to
investigate the coping skills of people living with HIV/AIDS.
Thus, when analyzing these coping skills and strategies, the
researcher must engage in a one-on-one interview with the
participants (Jahn, 2013). In the process, questions that trigger
psychological and emotional pain might be asked unknowingly.
Such situations are likely to occur in the study, especially when
dealing with participants who suffer from HIV/AIDS. In almost
all parts of the world, HIV/AIDS patients often witness
numerous cases of social stigma. These negative experiences
may interfere with the manner in which they respond to
interview questions. Therefore, it is the task of the researcher to
develop strategies that can help to minimize any possible mental

and emotional paint that the persons living with HIV are likely
o experience as a result of the data gathering and interview
questions. Many studies on nonmaleficense often narrow down
to physical harm (Chagani, 2014). However, the concept of
harm is broad and dynamic, incorporating all dimensions of
human life, including the mental and physical realms. In this
particular study, there is no serious physical interaction with the
participants that might cause physical pain, harm or death.
The concept of harm is broad and takes many forms. They range
from physical and emotional injuries to deprivation of property
or violations of human rights. Within the research context, the
primary emphasis of harm is often linked to a narrower
definition, such as pain, disability, or death (Chagani, 2014).
Within these standards, the research has observed avoidance of
harm since all the participants who took part in the study did
not die, sustain any physical injury or disability stemming from
the research. However, harm can be strongly within the eye of
the beholder, and a wider definition of harm is often required
during ethical considerations. In light of the above, more than
one level of harm may come into play in a situation. For
instance, the researchers are more likely to inflict mental pain
and suffering in the participants by asking questions related to
the way in which they responded to the news that they had been
diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. However, in such a situation, the
researchers have imposed one harm in order to avoid a greater
harm. Nonetheless, in all situations, researchers should be
prohibited from acting in ways that are likely to generate undue
risks or needless harm to participants.
The principle of beneficence is a moral obligation to act for the
benefit of others. In this respect, any research work that
observes this principle should be designed in a way that is
meant to promote societal good and wellbeing (Jahn, 2013).
There are various ways in which this principle comes into play.
For instance, the principle suggests that researchers should act

in a manner that provides benefits to the society, and balances
benefits with risks or harms. The principle of beneficence is
broad and multifaceted. It includes protecting and defending the
rights of others, preventing harm from occurring to others,
removing conditions that will cause harm, and supporting
persons with disabilities. Furthermore, this principle advocates
for rescuing persons in danger during and after research. In
furtherance of these ethical standards advocated by beneficence,
there are various ways in which the study can be assessed. For
instance, the outcomes of the study seeks to improve health
professionals’ understanding of HIV/AIDS patients’ coping
skills and strategies and the psychological pain that they
undergo in the process of coping. As a result, it provides health
professionals and psychological researchers with insights into
ways of developing interventions that are meant to address
mental health problems that affect HIV patients.
The study encourages researchers to design interventions that
are meant to enable HIV patients to bounce back to their normal
psychological and social norms after receiving adversities as a
consequence of HIV/AIDS diagnosis. Indeed, the nature of
resilience among individuals who are diagnosed with chronic
infections can be grouped into the crisis and survival stages.
The former is characterized by the onset of a psychological and
physical struggle that follows after diagnosis with several
struggles. This study can inform future evidence-based practices
that seek to design cognitive and counseling strategies for
improving the quality of life of persons living with HIV/ AIDS.
As such, the study fulfills the ethical principle of benefiting the
participants and the society at large by promoting greater good
and wellbeing for persons living with HIV/AIDS.
The ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficense are
multidimensional and intertwined. These dimensions include
positivity and utility. Positivity can be described as the benefits
that are gained after undertaking the research, which outweighs

its costs. For instance, timely understanding of the mental and
pain that HIV patients undergo after diagnosis can help to
reduce major depression and help to cope will with the disease.
On the other hand, utility refers to the benefits of undertaking
an action that balances its costs. For instance, in a clinical
research that explores psychological pain that patients undergo,
the patient control group may only receive psychological
treatment-as-usual instead of the experimental treatment that
could generate extra gains. Beneficence and nonmaleficence are
fundamental ethical principles that are essential in guiding the
clinical practice and research in both psychology and
healthcare. Beneficence encourages the researcher to exercise
responsibility of promoting the wellbeing of the patients,
especially participants in clinical trials, often by researching
and administering therapeutic interventions with the highest
possibility of positive patient responsivity. One of the biggest
ethical dilemmas that psychologists confront is the need to
strike a balance between beneficence and nonmaleficence. This
balance may sometimes entail weighing the possible benefits
and limitations or net risks associated with a specific research.
In all jurisdictions, researchers are required by law to inform
their participants or patients of the possible risks and gains of a
research, procedure, or testy. This move allows the study
participants to make an informed decision, with theirs being the
burden to assess the potential costs and benefits of the available
alternatives.
Autonomy and self-determination are other fundamental human
right that the participants should be granted during a research.
Thus, respect for autonomy is a practice that obligates the
researcher to respect the decisions of adults who have the
capacity to make their own decisions. There are three conditions
that must be existent for an action by the research subject to be
regarded as autonomous. They include: intentionality,
understanding, as well as complete absence of controlling
influences that determine the subject’s decisions. In order to

meet the ethical obligation of autonomy, there are several moral
standards or guidelines that can be used. They include: telling
the truth, respecting the privacy of others, protecting the
confidentiality of information, as well s seeking consent from
the participant before commencing the data gathering process.
Respect for autonomy represents an obligation to the researcher
to respect the decision making capabilities of the participants. It
also denotes the provision of choices and alternatives to the
subject so that they can practice self-determination. In this
study, the participants’ rights to autonomy were observed by
providing them with all the relevant information about the study
and giving them the opportunity to decide whether or not to
participate in the research. This process was primarily exercised
through issuance of informed consent forms to the subjects.
Within the context of this study, the subjects’ autonomy were
respected by first giving them all sufficient information that are
necessary for the research and then giving them the opportunity
to consent or reject proposals to participate in it. Based on this
practice, it is the responsibility of the researcher to ensure that
the subject is sufficiently competent to practice autonomy. By
competency, a research subject should be not only conscious,
but also possess the sufficient knowledge and understanding to
gain and maintain the information offered to take relevant
decisions. Along with this view, the principle also requires the
researcher to offer complete information to the participant and
not hide anything so that the patient may seek to meet an
obligation or can desire to spend some valuable time with
family members and friends. The subject, after knowing the
truth, may desire to do a hobby with which he or she desired to
do. The participant may also seek to select other options of the
research that may not be available or provided by the
researchers. However, it is the right of human beings to be
treated in a way that does not cause pain and anguish.
Therefore, the researcher should go by the data gathering
method in which the participants are comfortable with in order

to avoid restraining the subject from exercising autonomy. In
addition, in many jurisdictions, going ahead with a research
against patients’ rights and decisions even if it is meant for
their goodwill, is considered as an illegal decision. Therefore, a
comprehensive justification on legal is often needed to
undertake a research involving subjects who are patients against
their knowledge and will. The principle of beneficence supports
the autonomy of the patients as in the case of telling the truth to
the research subject and respecting the subject’s autonomy can
go a long way in generating the desired benefits to the
participants, who will feel more confident in determining their
course of life.
Further, self-determination is a human right that is also relevant
and interrelated to the right to autonomy. Self-determination is
a right and principle that plays a critical role in the
contemporary research ethics associated with human subject.
Put simply, this principle suggests that ultimately, it is the
participant who should make the final decision as to whether or
not to accept a proposed research process (Lindberg, Johansson
& Broström, 2019). While this principle is widely discussed in
many academic works, one of its most significant elements has
often been overlooked- the fact that real-world decision making
is temporarily extended. In this respect, decision-making is a
process that broadly takes a significant period of time from the
time at which the researcher determines that there is a need for
the subject to participate in the clinical research and that there
is a decision that should be made. Moreover, the participant
should be able to make it to the point at which they are actually
asked for their views. The principle of self-determination is
broadly viewed as the center of research ethics and trials in the
health sector (Lindberg, Johansson & Broström, 2019). It is a
principle that is commonly codified in legal frameworks and
standards across different parts of the world, and has had a
major effect on researchers’ understanding of ways of dealing
with several legal and ethical issues associated with handling

human subjects in research.
There are several accounts of the content and implications of
the principle that have been put into use within the context of
this study. For instance, in all stages of the study, the patients
were given the liberty to opt out of the research. Through the
issuance of informed consent documents and explaining to them
the conduct and content of the study, they were sufficiently
empowered to determine whether or not they would like to chat
their own path by either remaining or opting out of the research.
In view of this phenomenon, it would be deduced that it is the
research subject who ultimately, following evaluation of all
relevant information offered by the researchers, has the
authority to decide whether or not to consent to the research.
The principle of self-determination raises many fundamental
questions. One such question revolves around who should self-
determination be applicable to. In this study, the main subjects
of self determination are the participants of the research. They
are the HIV/AIDS patients who were interviewed on their
psychological coping skills. Since a right to self-determination
is often traditionally ascribed only to people with sufficient
decision-making capabilities, one major issue that confronts
many researchers is what it takes for a patient to be above the
recommended threshold. Based on this standard, it is not clear
in this study whether or not the HIV patient populations that
were sampled were above the recommended normal mental
threshold that is required of them to make informed decision on
whether or not they should take part in the research. However, it
can still be implied that they were mentally upright at the time
of decision-making based on the nature of the data that have
been gathered.
When it comes to self-determination, real-world decision-
making capabilities can be temporarily extended in that it
broadly takes some significant period of time from the point at
which the researcher determines that there is a consent decision

that should be made, and that the patient is mentally fit or able
to make it (Lindberg, Johansson & Broström, 2019). Moreover,
such a situation should extent to the point at which the subject
is asked about their views. Such a temporal element of decision-
making raises normative questions. For instance, it may not be
clear under what situations and length of time the researcher
should wait in order to get the feedback from the subject on the
decisions that they have made regarding participation in the
research.
Fi
nally, the principle of justice in research can also be used to
analyze the ethical standards that were used in the study. The
right to justice requires the researcher to exercise equity in the
distribution of the benefits of the research. These include the
benefits, costs, and resources. The key justice principles in a
study include: promotion of equal share, giving each person in
accordance with heir efforts, rewarding each individual
according to their contributions, and issuing gains made out of
the research according to merits (Silver, Ventura & Castro,
2016). In almost all forms, clinical trials require the active
participation of human subjects and entail clinical interventions
that are comprised of various procedures. However, this study
only engaged human subjects in the interviewing process alone.
Still, the performance of a study involving human subject can
be beneficial to the economy and the whole society, especially
the participating country, thereby generating employment
opportunities and promoting local scientific and technological
progress through the scientific data found and studied in
collaboration with many research centers (Silver, Ventura &
Castro, 2016). The financial and economic gains of this
particular study have not yet been determined. However, its
insights can be used to develop interventions that help to
promote psychological wellbeing of persons living with
HIV/AIDS. In so doing, the study can immensely improve their
quality of life.

Ethical Scientific Integrity
The credibility of a researcher or author is very critical in
assessing the authenticity and quality of a specific research
work. The personal details of the authors who developed this
research work have not been provided in the journal article.
However, there are other standards that can still be used to
determine the credibility and level of suitability of the
researchers to undertake the above study. For instance, the
authors have revealed at the end of the article that their study
was funded by the Directorate General of Higher Education,
Ministry of Culture and Education in the Republic of Indonesia.
Based on this standard alone, it can be deduced that the authors
have the necessary academic credentials and intellectual acumen
or capacity to undertake such a study. In addition, the mere fact
that the study was approved by these higher educational bodies
raises the credibility of the authors. Another factor that raises
the credibility of this particular study is that its findings were
assessed and later published by the Research HIV Nursing,
which is a widely known reputable international journal that
publishes studies on HIV research.
Plagiarism is one of the ethical issues in research that are
hardly ever mentioned. However, its violations can have far-
reaching consequences on the credibility and authenticity of a
specific body of knowledge. Plagiarism can be defined as the
unethical practice of stealing and passing off ideas or group of
words as one’s own (Ben-Yehuda & Oliver-Lumerman, 2017).
Plagiarism is also the act of utilizing someone’s ideas and
works and pretending to be one’s own. In light of the above,
there are various ways in which plagiarism manifests itself in
research. For instance, many researchers often fail to recognize
the originators of their collection of words. However, this
specific study can be said to have passed plagiarism test. First,
the body section of the study has various in-text citations,

indicating that the authors acknowledged the sources or
originators of the ideas that were sued in the study (Ben-Yehuda
& Oliver-Lumerman, 2017). In addition, all the in-text citations
have their corresponding bibliographic citations. As such, the
authors do not have a case of plagiarism or copyright violation.
Fabrication and falsification are some of the cardinal
malpractices ion research conduct. They are commonly regarded
as the key concerns in averting research misconduct. Any
deviation or departure from such standards often undermines the
integrity of a specific body of research for an individual or
organization as a whole (Ben-Yehuda & Oliver-Lumerman,
2017). Falsification can be described as the practice of altering
or omitting research findings to support certain claims,
hypotheses, as well as other data. This can include the act of
manipulating study instrumentation, materials, or procedures.
Usually, manipulations of images or representations in a way
that distorts the figures or data or reads too much between the
lines can also be regarded as an act of falsification (Ben-
Yehuda & Oliver-Lumerman, 2017). The process of identifying
a case of falsification or fabrication is often a complex one. As
such, it was not possible for this specific study to detect any
case of falsification. This is because the main data that were
being explored were primarily qualitative and they were derived
from the interview responses. In the same way, it was not easy
to detect any case of outright fabrication. Fabrication is the
development of or inclusion of data, observations, or
characterizations that never took place during the collection of
data. Fabrications are likely to take place during the process of
filling out the entire of an experiment runs (Ben-Yehuda &
Oliver-Lumerman, 2017). Moreover, the researchers might
come up with claims on the basis of incomplete or presumed
findings, which are regarded as outright forms of fabrication.
Institutional Review Board

Details on the Institutional Review Board (IRB) pertaining to
this study have not been written in the article. However, the
researchers indicate that they passed through the due process of
informed consent and other ethical standards before they were
approved to participate in the study. In addition, the study was
approved by the Ministry of Higher Education, although such a
ministry may or may not develop an IRB to assess the ethical
suitability of the researchers. Therefore, it is not easy to
determine whether or not the above study was approved by IRB.
However, the researchers’ use of human subjects was not
experimental in nature. Rather, use of human subjects in this
study was minimized to data collection process through
interviews.
The absence of details regarding the IRB in this study calls for
the need for future researchers to report as to whether or not
their studies were approved by an ethics body. All individual
organizations or sponsors may demand that all studies,
irrespective of their sources of funding, be assessed and
approved by an IRB (Whitney, 2015). An IRB has the specific
power and authority over the nature of the research within its
jurisdiction. For instance, no clinical research may be approved
to stat enrolling participants until it has been given the green
light by the IRB. The IRB primarily has the authority to
approve, dismiss, or halt all research activities that fall within
its jurisdictions in accordance with the relevant government
regulations and institutional standards and procedures. The IRB
also ensures that a given research meets the needed ethical
standards by demanding for modifications in processes,
protocols as well as previously approved studies (Whitney,
2015). Furthermore, the IRB has the power and authority to
demand that participants in a specific research be granted any
extra information that will enable them to make informed
decisions to participate in the study.
One of the most important documentations that the IRB may

require is the informed consent form. While researchers who
indicate that they provided participants with informed consent
might have gone through the IRB, it might not be the case in all
situations. All institutions that take part in the research process
that engage human subjects are often tasked with the
responsibility of identifying an IRB to assess and approve such
studies (Whitney, 2015). The IRB is charged with the
responsibility of adhering to the requirements and standards
recommended by the Office for Human Research Protections.
Many study sites may be under the jurisdiction of more than one
IRB. Then IRB plays a significant role in safeguarding the
rights, safety, and wellbeing of all human study participants.
The IRB meets this responsibility by assessing the full research
plan for a specific research study in order to ensure that it meets
the standards that have been recommended by local and
international codes of research ethics (Whitney, 2015).
Moreover, the IRB undertakes a confirmation and approval that
the study plan does not expose human subjects to unreasonable
risks. In this particular study, human subjects are not exposed to
unreasonable risks because their role in the research is to
simply explain how they psychologically cope with the news of
their diagnosis with HIV/ AIDS.
Informed Consent
Informed consent is the main ethical practice that has been
extensively observed by the researchers in this study. For
instance, after selecting the populations to participate in the
study, the participants were informed regarding the conduct of
the research. Thereafter, the researchers report that the
participants consented to the proposals to participate in the
interview. The researchers also indicate that the study
participants were given the opportunity to opt out of the
research at any stage if they so wished. Therefore, it can be
deduced that the study adhered to the recommended informed
consent procedures and standards.

Informed consent can be described as the voluntary acceptance
by a study subject to participate in a research (Minor, 2015).
Thus, informed consent should not be treated simplistically as a
form that is signed but a process. As a process, informed
consent is regarded as an essentiality before registering a
participant for study. As such, informed consent should be
sought in all forms of human subjects studies, ranging from
diagnostics and therapeutic investigations, to intervention and
behavioral assessments.
The process of seeking informed consent entails informing the
participants on their rights, objective and role in the study. The
processes should of informing the participant should also entail
enlightening the human subject about all the possible risks and
the advantages involved in participating in the study (Minor,
2015). Usually, the target participants of the research should
take part willingly and not through compulsion. Therefore,
vulnerable and disadvantaged groups of participants such as
prisoners, expectant women, and children should be accorded
extra protections in order for them to make more informed
decisions during the research process.
HIPAA
The study was conducted outside the jurisdictions of the United
States. As such, it is not bound by the standards, laws and
regulations of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA). However, if the study and its
findings were to be used to inform evidence-based practices in
the United States, it would be bound by HIPAA laws. One of the
most sensitive and important area of research is dealing with the
privacy of HIV/AIDS patients during research. Indeed, the
privacy of patients is safeguarded by the US Department of
Health and Human Services in line with HIPAA regulations.

The Authority of HIPAA goes beyond protection of patient
privacy and confidentiality within the health setting to
incorporate protection of welfare of human study subjects.
While this does not indicate that the privacy and confidentiality
of participants’ data were protected, HIPAA calls for the
safeguarding of the human rights of research subjects under the
Basic HHS Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects,
also widely referred to as Common Rule (Majumder & Guerrini,
2016). While the word ‘privacy does not feature in HIPAA’s
title, almost all sections of this law calls to attention the need
for researchers to safeguard the privacy and confidentiality of
participants (Majumder & Guerrini, 2016). As such, privacy is
critical to the realization of HIPAA’s goals.
Risk to Benefit Ratio
In this article, the researchers do not show if they calculated a
risk to benefits ratio. However, the research can comfortably be
categorized as a minimal risk study. A minimal risk is a
situation in which the likelihood and degree of harm or
discomfort expected in a proposed study are not higher or
greater in them than those that are commonly encountered in
daily situations during the furtherance of normal physical or
psychological assessments or tests (Melnyk & Morrison-Beedy,
2012). The potential risks posed by this study are low because
there is no physical engagement of the bodies of human subjects
in the study. Instead, the human subjects were only required to
answer interview questions regarding their HIV psychological
coping skills.
Benefits are associated with the potentiality of the research
treatment to eliminate a condition or address certain problems.
These problems can especially relate to an individual or
population that is being surveyed (Melnyk & Morrison-Beedy,
2012). For instance, some of the problems that the research
focused on are the psychological and emotional pain that HIV

patients undergo. The potential benefits that can be gained from
the study include providing insights into the development of
interventions to improve HIV/AIDS patients’ resilience after
facing adversities due to HIV diagnosis. In addition, the study
provides benefits to the study population by providing strategies
of fighting stigma.
Conclusion
Ethical problems are bound to occur in all studies. However,
researchers who deal with human subjects must take extra
caution not to affect the participants. Study participants might
be exposed to various malpractices that can adversely affect
their wellbeing. For instance, researchers may fail to protect
them from physical and mental harm. Moreover, their privacy
and confidentiality rights might be at risk during the study
process. However, understanding ethical practices that guide
dealing with human subjects can ensure that the study passes
the tests recommended by the IRB.
References
Avasthi, A., Ghosh, A., Sarkar, S., & Grover, S. (2013). Ethics
in medical research: General
principles with special reference to psychiatry research.
Indian journal of
psychiatry
,
55
(1), 86.
Ben-Yehuda, N., & Oliver-Lumerman, A. (2017).

Fraud and Misconduct in Research:
Detection, Investigation, and Organizational Response
. Michigan: University of
Michigan Press.
Chagani, S. M. I. (2014). Telling the truth-A tussle between
four principles of ethics.
Journal of
Clinical Research & Bioethics
,
5
(2), 172.
Jahn, W. T. (2011). The 4 basic ethical principles that apply to
forensic activities are respect for
autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice.
Journal of chiropractic
medicine
,
10
(3), 225.
Kumboyono, K., Sukotjo, C.T., Lesatri, Y.C., & Wijayanti, P.D.
(2018). Resilience of people
living with HIV/AIDS in Indonesia: a phenomenological study.
HIV Nursing
, 18(1),
4–7.

Lindberg, J., Johansson, M., & Broström, L. (2019).
Temporising and respect for patient self-
determination.
Journal of medical ethics
,
45
(3), 161-167.
Majumder, & M.A., Guerrini, C.J. (2016). Ethical foundations,
sources of confusion in clinical
medicine, and controversies in biomedical research.
AMA Journal of Medical Ethics.
Melnyk, B., & Morrison-Beedy, D. (2012).
Intervention research: Designing, conducting,
analyzing, and funding
. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Minor, J. (2015).
Informed consent in predictive genetic testing: A revised model
. New York:
Springer.
Silva, CFD, Ventura, M., & Castro, CGSOD (2016). Bioethical
perspective of justice in clinical
trials.
Revista Bioética
,
24
(2), 292-303.

Whitney, S. N. (2015).
Balanced ethics review: A guide for institutional review board
members
.
New York: Springer.
Infections disease: a global perspective
Recent Health Care Legislature (within 3 years)
· Literature review regarding issue (4 peer reviewed articles)
· Statistical data related to issue, population impacted, and
health outcome of issue and legislature.
· Nursing role in passing the legislature
· References within 5 years
· 10 Pages including Title page and Reference page
· APA Format

Ethical Conduct of Researchpower point from this document, 1.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Ethical Conduct of Researchpower point from this document, 1.docx (20)

More from debishakespeare (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Ethical Conduct of Researchpower point from this document, 1.docx