Informed Consent in the Healthcare Research

Informed Consent in the Healthcare Research

Introduction

All types of studies that are conducted for first-hand information call for the availability of respondents (Saver, 2006). Respondents are the participants who are required to provide the researcher with information about his or her research topic. Some of the information that the research that the researcher might be looking at can be confidential especially studies on health care issues. For the participant to volunteer to give such confidential information ought to be notified about the study (Roberts et al. 2011). Some of the information that should be revealed to the participant include but not limited to the type of research, purpose, the benefits, its beneficiaries, information need, time of the actual research, and his or her role (Jansen et al. 2007). It is not very easy for a participant to give reliable information, mainly when he or she is not benefiting from the research or when the beneficiary is only one. However, it has been found that if there is communication between the two parties, then the accuracy and reliability of the information given by the participant is guaranteed. The notification to the participant for his acceptance is informed consent.

Criterion 1: The Importance of the Informed Consent

Every clinical research is governed by guidelines and regulations that require informed consent. It is, therefore, according to the law for all researchers to abide by the requirement for their study to be legal (Bhutta, 2004). Ethical issues have been taken with a substantial weight, especially in America, such that some constitutional provisions are advocating for them. It is, therefore, a requirement by the government not only for single person-benefiting research but also for all kinds of research.

Mobilization of information disclosure is effectively achieved through informed consent (Doyal, 1997). If the respondent finds that the research is not that crucial to him or her and that the benefits go to one person, he might be reluctant to give information. However, once the participant is talked to by the researcher, he is made aware of the full feasible consequences of the permission he will grant the researcher (King & Moulton, 2006). The logic behind this is that before the researcher is granted permission to continue with the interview or data collection from the patient, there is a mutual agreement. If the researcher promises not to disclose the details of the participant, then it increases the willingness of him to give the information. For example, if the research was to obtain information about HIV/AIDS, only a few or none of the population can participate in this research (King & Moulton, 2006). However, with the right approach and valid agreement, some patients can volunteer to participate.

Additionally, the third importance of informed consent is voluntarism (Doyal, 2001). A researcher will be having an easy time when dealing with participants who are willing to reveal the information they have about the research topic. Additionally, the adequacy of the data will be guaranteed since there is a willingness in the respondents. The voluntarism of the participants also enhances the reliability of the information. The time taken when dealing with volunteered respondents is less than if they were not volunteered. Also, the process of analyzing such data is made easy since there will be no incompleteness. The awareness of potential research also enhances the patient’s decision-making. He or she can decide on whether to take part or not.

Criterion 2: Demerits of the Informed Consent in the Research

The process of seeking the participants’ permission is a long one, and it is costly to the researcher in terms of time and finance (Dawson & Kass, 2005). The researcher will have to spend time to reach his or her targeted group. Additionally, the researcher has to spend on transport (Verheggen, Jonkers & Kok, 1996). These costs are added costs to the research. Although the researcher sacrifices his time and money to seek permission, he is not guaranteed to be granted permission, especially for this case of one beneficiary of the research (Miller, 1999).  Also, it is risk-taking for the patient to grant someone permission to access his or her details and get information from him. No certainty that privacy will be maintained, especially for adverse cases.

Criterion 3: Arguments Synthesis

Following the two cases concerning informed consent, it is vivid that it is not only necessary to be a sufficient requirement. In most countries like America, the ethical issue is a provision by law, and therefore all researchers should observe the law (Doyal, 1997). Consequently, it is a must for potential researchers to seek the participant’s consent. Also, health care is a critical area, and any research conducted on the same requires accuracy, adequacy, and reliability of the data provided. These are some of the information elements that can be enhanced through the informed consent of the participant. The disadvantages attributed to the requirement are negligible and can be taken as part of the research challenges that should be expected.

References

Saver, R. S. (2006). Critical care research and informed consent. NCL, Rev., 75, 205.

Roberts, I., Prieto-Merino, D., Shakur, H., Chalmers, I., & Nicholl, J. (2011). Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. The Lancet, 377(9771), 1071-1072.

Jansen, T. C., Kompanje, E. J. O., Druml, C., Menon, D. K., Wiedermann, C. J., & Bakker, J. (2007). Deferred consent in emergency intensive care research: what if the patient dies early? Use the data or not?. Intensive care medicine, 33(5), 894-900.

Bhutta, Z. A. (2004). Beyond informed consent. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82, 771-777.

Doyal, L. (1997). Informed consent in medical research: Journals should not publish research to which patients have not given fully informed consent–with three exceptions: bmj, 314(7087), 1107.

King, J. S., & Moulton, B. W. (2006). Rethinking informed consent: the case for shared medical decision-making. American journal of law & medicine, 32(4), 429-501.

Doyal, L. (2001). Informed consent: moral necessity or illusion?. BMJ Quality & Safety, 10(suppl 1), i29-i33.

Dawson, L., & Kass, N. E. (2005). Views of US researchers about informed consent in international collaborative research. Social science & medicine, 61(6), 1211-1222.

Verheggen, F. W., Jonkers, R., & Kok, G. (1996). Patients’ perceptions of informed consent and the quality of information disclosure in clinical trials. Patient education and counseling, 29(2), 137-153.

Miller, M. C. (1999). Suicide-prevention contracts: Advantages, disadvantages, and an alternative approach.