“The participant stated that the knowledge of HIV infection affected his emotional balance,” would be preferable to “The participant became emotionally distressed. ” Such precision in observation recording depends upon the unique combination of the researcher’s knowledge, experience, and skill. At the same time, taking notes must not become a priority during an interview. It would become counterproductive if the participant perceives that the researcher pays more attention to the writing than to him/her. Coming back to informed consent, it is worthy to notice that in most cases it is participant-centered.
That means that it is up to the participant to decide whether he or she is willing to share information. Sulmasy (2002) quoted interesting words spoken by Justice Benjamin Cardozo, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault…. ” Thus, it is apparent that the informed consent serves as the participant’s permission to probe for information. From that perspective, the researcher must be very precise in what he or she is asking.
It is understandable, that questions about HIV/AIDS-related conditions, as physical and psychological can be and usually are very sensitive. Only when assured of confidentiality, the participants might (and only might) reveal personal information. Certainly and logically, the researcher must inform the participant of the purpose of the procedure and the significance behind the participant’s answers. Mental Status Examination will evaluate the participant’s ability to be objective in his/her answers and the degree in which the emotional state will influence his/her objectivity.
It is a common knowledge that answering questions about AIDS and origins of HIV infection deals in revealing very personal information about one’s sexual habits and attitudes. Thus, the researcher for the drug company must let the participant know that the purpose of the interview is to gather information relevant to designing new drugs that would combat this devastating disease, and in that the origins and the ways the participant got infected are not of the primary concern. More so would be the current health condition, symptoms, and the affects to the currently taken medication and health procedures.
Again, it is logical to return to the purpose of gathering information. Perhaps it would be beneficial to provide the participant with the minimum allowed information about the company’s goals and hopes in research. In such, it would be possible to secure understanding and complete cooperation. When understanding and cooperation are secured, more pertinent and personal information can be shared, and again within the reason and on need-to-know basis. Questions like how many sexual encounters the participant was involved in are irrelevant to the research purpose.
To the contrary, the request to consent in securing the medical records should be considered relevant. Basically, and the bottom line, the ethical concerns should revolve around the realized or potential benefit to the participant and should be communicated as such. It will be unethical for the company’s representative to use the participant in obtaining any kind of benefits despite strong emotional, psychological, or physical harm that is potentially may be experienced by the participant.
All procedures and every question must revolve around the potential benefit to the participant that is with the participant in mind.
References
Fisher, C. B. (2002). A Goodness-of-Fit Ethic for Informed Consent. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30(1), 159+. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from Questia database: http://www. questia. com/PM. qst? a=o&d=5000634837 Ivey, A. E. , & Ivey, M. B. (2007). Intentional interviewing and counseling: Facilitating client development in a multicultural society (6th ed. ). Belmont, CA: Thomson.