Case study analysis from three different people

Posted: September 10th, 2013

Case study analysis from three different people

Name

Course

Date

Case study analysis from three different people

1.         The first person looks into the ethical issues that surround the child and his or her needs. The perception that the child is sick and unstable to be abandoned is true. This is because children are better off being taken care of by their parents. Accordingly, the parents had the legal right to consent to admitting the children in the hospital. However, I disagree that it is unethical for the children in the states ward to be included in the research. The opinion that if the state wanted to do more research on the disease it should have hired more staff is agreeable. This is because the institution suffers from the effect of inadequate resources. Therefore, they have end up using unethical methods in order to cater for the needs of the patients.

I also agree that the parents are irresponsible because they leave their children in a poor environment. Issues related to institutionalized persons and research undertaken is always the center of debate because they are considered unjust (Garret, et.al, 2010). Therefore, this view considers the level of safety in this institution and the effects of the research on the child. The parents should have been informed of the inability of the research to lead to immunity. Consequently, it is also the role of the state to provide the institution with necessary requirements in order to improve the quality of service in the institution. This opinion is therefore correct in questioning the ethics related to the research process.

2.         The second person looks into the ethics of the research process and the results. This opinion is correct in various aspects. The notion that children are a vulnerable population with respect to research activities is true. This is made more sensitive when the children in question are mentally retarded. Therefore, the case study is ravaged by numerous unethical practices. It is agreeable that the children required wholesome nursing care. The opinion that the institution may have let the children under deplorable conditions for the purpose of research is also true. Consequently, this was done in order to determine the point of vulnerability in the children’s immunity to hepatitis B. Therefore, the risks in the research outweighed the benefits. This is contrary to the ethical principles that guide research activities. Therefore, this opinion stands by the ethics of the researcher. However, it is also important to note that subjects do not benefit directly in non-therapeutic research. In addition, the ethics of research allocation is not appropriately distributed.

3.         The third person asserts that the research was ethical because it sought to determine and understand the disease. However, it does not look into the conditions and circumstances surrounding the research process. This opinion only looks in to the outcome of the research and the benefits it will have on other people. However, it is a primary consideration that the risks involved in research activities should not outweigh the benefits. The case in this medical hospital presents numerous risks than benefits. I disagree that it was unethical that the children had “developed immunity.” This is because the children were in better conditions. It is also agreeable that it was unethical for the research to be continued after the process did not lead to immunity. The parents had the legal right to give consent for their children. However, leaving the children in Willowbrook was not in the best interest of the child. I agree that this put the children at a higher risk. The facility also requires more resources in order to take care of the increase in patient population.

Reference

Garrett, T. M., & Garrett, T. M. (2010). Health care ethics: Principles and problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.