NR505-NP Week 6 Discussion Initial Post

Learning more details this week about the history of research ethics has reinforced the critical need for extensive oversight and regulation of biomedical research. The inhumane and horrific experiments performed on prisoners during the Nazi regime were atrocities that provide stark evidence of the depths of evil and dehumanization that can occur when research is conducted without ethical constraints. These acts were not just violations of human rights but clear demonstrations of how far individuals or groups can stray from moral decency when unchecked.

What is even more disturbing is the realization that similar unethical practices occurred in our own country. The United States has a history of sponsoring and approving medical experiments on its citizens without their knowledge or consent, often targeting vulnerable populations such as the poor, mentally disabled, and incarcerated individuals. These actions, which continued even after the establishment of the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki, are both mind-blowing and deeply embarrassing (Gray et al., 2017, pp. 158-160). These historical injustices underscore the importance of the ethical guidelines that we now have in place and remind us of the ongoing need for vigilance to ensure the protection of human subjects in research.

In reviewing the studies related to my PICOT question, I was relieved to observe that the researchers appeared to adhere to all the necessary procedures to adequately protect the rights of their human subjects. These procedures included obtaining informed consent, ensuring confidentiality, and receiving approval from Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The adherence to these protocols reflects the progress that has been made in research ethics, although the lessons from history remind us that we must continue to be diligent in upholding these standards.

References:

Gray, M., Grove, S. K., & Sutherland, S. (2017). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. Elsevier.