Gelinas' Arguments on Clinical Research without Informed Consent

Name
Course
Professor
Date
Question 1: Gelinas et al. suggest two conditions according to which it is ethically permissible to conduct clinical research without informed consent. Is their argument persuasive?
Research processes are essential in assessing various societal issues. They use human beings who provide data about their experience concerning the topic under investigation. A controversial issue about research is seeking consent from the participants. Most scholars argue that researchers should seek consent from their participants before involving them in the research. However, Gelinas et al. argue that it is sometimes ethical to use participants in a study without seeking their consent in their research. They suggest two conditions according to which it is ethically permissible to conduct clinical research without informed consent. The first condition is when the research does not infringe the rights of the participants, and it is practically challenging to get consent. The second condition is when the impact of the infringement is minor and that the research benefits outweigh the damage caused to the participant, and when it is impracticable to obtain consent. Gelinas et al.'s arguments are persuasive because it can be practically challenging to obtain consent due to costs incurred, the nature of research, and the minor effects the infringement may have on the participants.
First Condition
The first condition the researchers argue is that research can be carried out without the participant's consent is when the research does not infringe the rights of the respondents. Researchers often seek informed consent to help shield the participants' autonomy, giving them the authority over their role in the research and whether to accept or decline the participation. Personal control over research participation means that the researcher only follows the conditions set by the participant in the research. For example, a researcher may want their identity concealed or to participate only to a certain extent in the research. The researcher should respect that. However, it may not be necessary to seek informed consent in cases where participants do not stand an infringement on their rights. For instance, research that needs the researcher to observe people's behavior may not warrant informed consent since it does not infringe on the rights of the participants— the researchers based their argument on such a case.
Consent helps to protect the interests of the participants. This means that participants would not care about consent if they do not have interests they care about. Giving consent to a research process shows that the participant believes the research advances their interests. Also, consent means that the participants believe that the research fosters their interest (Gelinas et al. 36). For example, a car owner may decline to carry another person who needs urgent transportation for an emergency, yet they have not infringed their rights. Based on the first condition, such an act does not infringe on the rights of the participants. It may be that the person who needs help does not share the same interests as the car owner. For the same reasons, Gelinas et al. believe that informed necessary is not necessary for such scenarios.
Gelinas et al. assert that giving consent allows others to interact with us in ways that would be wrong (Gelinas et al. 36). Participants agree to most of the requests from the researchers, including giving testimony in situations that would jeopardize their safety. For example, a person may give an account about food poisoning with a famous food company. This may attract court attention, putting the participant in a compromising situation. Informed consent waives the right to control, meaning the researcher can put the participant in a compromising situation. However, Gelinas et al. argue that consent would not be necessary for situations that do not raise such security and safety threats.
The authors acknowledge personal sovereignty, which consent takes away from the participants. Informed consent means that a participants' sovereignty is compromised because they permit the researchers to infringe on a person's fundamental rights. For example, getting consent means that the researcher will summon the participant to engage in other activities. However, Gelinas et al. believe in their first condition that consent is not necessary for all situations. For example, informed consent is not necessary in cases where the person's do not have any sovereignty to be infringed. A good example is the case of observational research, where the researcher only observes a specific public or clinical behavior. The participants do not have any rights to be infringed in this case. Therefore, researchers can conduct their research without getting the participants' consent.
Another instance where Gelinas et al. argue that consent is needed is when a research process stands to wrong the participants. Informed consent is necessary here to ensure that the participant knows the possible impacts of their participation. This eliminates seeking consent when the participants do not stand to be wronged in the research process. Gelinas et al. conclude their first condition by arguing that rights infringement without consent should be specific to include finer details like the right not to be subject to bodily intrusion without one's consent. In the end, not all rights infringement is serious.
Second Condition
Gelinas et al.'s second condition state that not obtaining research participants' consent is...