Discussion Question 1
Informed consent is not an event and it is a process of communication that must continuously occur between the researchers and the participants. Being a process, then there are chances of mistakes and errors and this is even so for the well-trained and even the well-intentioned researchers. Individual informed consent does not necessarily offer the best approach to addressing the occurring mistakes and errors and there is need for alternative methods of consent (Shelton, Freeman, Fish, Bachman & Richardson, 2015). This is because it limits the communication between the research and the participant and at times, the participant may not be well understand the technical terms that may be defined and used in the informed consent document or sessions. More vigorous methods that take into considering these discrepancies at the individual level can be sought and that implies community consent alternatives that widen the scope of scrutiny (Shelton, Freeman, Fish, Bachman & Richardson, 2015). At any particular time, it is important for the researchers to make a thorough understanding of their intention to conduct research in such a manner as respecting and honoring the participants for the sake of the safety and security of their participants and more so in regard to the validity of their study. If therefore the researcher does use my medical records without consent, I may feel that they have essentially contravened the agreement and relegated my role to a subject even when I am the owner of the data (Faden, Beauchamp & Kass, 2014).
Discussion Question 2
Based on the risk posed on the participants, the research could most likely be a full board review. This implies that the risk level posed on the participants is much higher than the minimal risk (Hill, Turner, Martin & Donovan, 2013). In determination that one group of the participants had to undergo a painful procedure (tracheal suctioning), then single member of the review tan could not effectively ascertain the importance of the research in relation to the impacts of the process on the participants (Shelton, Freeman, Fish, Bachman & Richardson, 2015).
References
Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & Kass, N. E. (2014). Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med, 370(8), 766-768.
Hill, E. M., Turner, E. L., Martin, R. M., & Donovan, J. L. (2013). “Let’s get the best quality research we can”: public awareness and acceptance of consent to use existing data in health research: a systematic review and qualitative study. BMC medical research methodology, 13(1), 72.
Shelton, A. K., Freeman, B. D., Fish, A. F., Bachman, J. A., & Richardson, L. I. (2015). A Computer-Based Education Intervention to Enhance Surrogates’ Informed Consent for Genomics Research. American Journal of Critical Care, 24(2), 148-155.
