Ethics A Harbor Global Biomedical Research -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Ethics A Harbor Global Biomedical Research? Answer: Introduction Before conducting the study, subjects who could contribute significantly to the study was identified. There were a total of 71 subjects assessed for eligibility, amongst whom 30 of them were excluded (Israel, 2014). When 41 subjects were asked for consent only 27 responded and signed consent for the study. Only subjects that signed consent form was taken for the purpose of the research. Who explained the study to participants? How did they explain it? The scholar explained procedures and details regarding the study to participants. It is the duty of the scholar to inform regarding collection of statistical data from the patients (Johnson, 2014). The scholar orally informed that sample data that he would collect from patients to reflect regarding wounds management and usage of tap water. How did the researchers protect participants privacy and confidentiality? The scholar collected data from participants and analysed the to attain results. However, while collection or analysing of such data he did not disclose names or other personal details of the patients (Dove, 2014). This was done specially to protect privacy and confidentiality rights of participants. Were the potential risks and benefits of the study discussed with participants? When? How? What do you think are the risk and benefits of the study? The potential risks and benefits of the study was not discussed with the participants. The risks of the study are increased risks of infection arising from wounds healing by usage of tap water (Loewen, 2014). Participants were randomly subjected to using tap water and distilled water for healing wounds. Those participants that were treated with tap water could easily have increased risks from infections. Benefits of the study could be to the greater population in Asian countries who uses varied methods for treating wounds. Do you think the participants were vulnerable (e.g., children or adults who are not physically or mentally competent to participate in the study)? what made them vulnerable? Adult population who were selected for the study were vulnerable as some of them faced comorbidities. Further treating their wounds with use of tap water made they vulnerable to an increased rate of infection. Children were not participants in the study, hence they were not subjected any types of vulnerability. Did a Research Ethics Board or Ethics Review Committee approve the study? how was this done? Research Ethics Board and Ethics Review Committee was not approached to approve the study as it adhered to all possible norms and rules for ethics. The study procedures were reviewed and approved by the Human Subjects Committee of the Hong Kong Polytechnic Institute, and the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Kowloon West Cluster of the Hospital Authority. A written application was submitted to the board for their approval. The participants consent form was also provided for approving the study. Articles ethical strength and weaknesses: The articles ethical strengths are that it adheres to all possible ethical standards of research and it includes a code of ethics. Weakness of the article is that it has not been able to gather consent from greater participants for the study. Reference Lists Dove, E. S. (2014). Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research. Journal of Law and the Business, 1(1), 3-51. Israel, M. (2014). Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory compliance. Sage. Johnson, B. (2014). Ethical issues in shadowing research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 21-40. Loewen, P. (2014). Ethical issues in pharmacy practice research: an introductory guide. The Canadian journal of hospital psychology, 133. Please mention volume and issue number for the journals