Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Academic Ethics 5 (2-4):163-177 (2007)
|Abstract||In “Advisory Opinion on Confidentiality, Its Limits and Duties to Others” the Canadian Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) articulates a rationale for a priori limitations to research confidentiality, based largely on putative legal duties to violate confidentiality in certain circumstances. We argue that PRE promotes a “Law of the Land” doctrine of research ethics that is but one approach to resolving potential conflicts between law and research ethics. PRE emphasises risks that have never materialized, and ignores jurisprudence on challenges to research confidentiality. When we examine what the courts have actually done with research-based claims of privilege, we find they clearly recognize and affirm researchers’ ethical obligations to maintain strict confidentiality and protect research participants. Ironically, the one exception – where the court ordered that information be disclosed – occurred precisely because the researchers had limited confidentiality. The passive approach PRE espouses leaves vital questions about what protecting confidentiality to the “full extent possible in law” means, and leaves the impression that academics should accept whatever limitations the courts may impose without participating in the courtroom dialogue determining where those limits are drawn. In contrast, we believe confidentiality is so important to the protection of research participants and the integrity of the research enterprise that it is worth fighting for. The “ethics-first” doctrine of “strict confidentiality” we describe adheres to the social sciences’ and humanities’ longstanding commitment to research confidentiality and duty to the research participant.|
|Keywords||Strict confidentiality Limited confidentiality doctrine Canadian research ethics Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ke Yu (2008). Confidentiality Revisited. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2):161-172.
James L. Werth, Caroline Burke & Rebekah J. Bardash (2002). Confidentiality in End-of-Life and After-Death Situations. Ethics and Behavior 12 (3):205 – 222.
Colleen Reid & Elana Brief (2009). Confronting Condescending Ethics: How Community-Based Research Challenges Traditional Approaches to Consent, Confidentiality, and Capacity. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):75-85.
Judith K. Bernhard & Julie E. E. Young (2009). Gaining Institutional Permission: Researching Precarious Legal Status in Canada. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (3):175-191.
M. A. Crook (2013). The Risks of Absolute Medical Confidentiality. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):107-122.
Matthew K. Wynia (2007). Breaching Confidentiality to Protect the Public: Evolving Standards of Medical Confidentiality for Military Detainees. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (8):1 – 5.
Kenneth Kipnis (2006). A Defense of Unqualified Medical Confidentiality. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (2):7 – 18.
Martin Tolich (2009). The Principle of Caveat Emptor: Confidentiality and Informed Consent as Endemic Ethical Dilemmas in Focus Group Research. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):99-108.
Ted Palys & John Lowman (2010). Going Boldly Where No One Has Gone Before? How Confidentiality Risk Aversion is Killing Research on Sensitive Topics. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (4):265-284.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #101,329 of 740,407 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,960 of 740,407 )
How can I increase my downloads?