Defending Research Confidentiality “To the Extent the Law Allows:” Lessons From the Boston College Subpoenas [Book Review]
Journal of Academic Ethics 10 (4):271-297 (2012)
|Abstract||Although in the US there have been dozens of subpoenas seeking information gathered by academic researchers under a pledge of confidentiality, few cases have garnered as much attention as the two sets of subpoenas issued to Boston College seeking interviews conducted with IRA operatives who participated in The Belfast Project, an oral history of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. For the researchers and participants, confidentiality was understood to be unlimited, while Boston College has asserted that it pledged confidentiality only “to the extent American law allows.” This a priori limitation to confidentiality is invoked by many researchers and universities in the United States, Canada and Great Britain, but there has been little discussion of what the phrase means and what ethical obligations accompany it. An examination of the researchers’ and Boston College’s behaviour in relation to the subpoenas provides the basis for that discussion. We conclude that Boston College has provided an example that will be cited for years to come of how not to protect research participants to the extent American law allows|
|Keywords||Research confidentiality Boston College Belfast Project Legal cases Limited confidentiality Ethics-first|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Lowman & Ted Palys (2007). Strict Confidentiality: An Alternative to Pre's “Limited Confidentiality” Doctrine. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 5 (2-4):163-177.
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.
Ke Yu (2008). Confidentiality Revisited. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2):161-172.
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.
Ghiath Alahmad & Kris Dierickx (2012). What Do Islamic Institutional Fatwas Say About Medical and Research Confidentiality and Breach of Confidentiality? Developing World Bioethics 12 (2):104-112.
Jeffrey E. Barnett (2009). Ethics Desk Reference for Counselors. American Counseling Association.
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.
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.
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.
M. A. Crook (2013). The Risks of Absolute Medical Confidentiality. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):107-122.
Stavroula A. Papadodima, Chara A. Spiliopoulou & Emmanouil I. Sakelliadis (2008). Medical Confidentiality: Legal and Ethical Aspects in Greece. Bioethics 22 (7):397-405.
Ana Smith Iltis (2005). Timing Invitations to Participate in Clinical Research: Preliminary Versus Informed Consent. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (1):89 – 106.
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.
Kenneth Kipnis (2006). A Defense of Unqualified Medical Confidentiality. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (2):7 – 18.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-11-11
Total downloads1 ( #291,771 of 722,876 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,876 )
How can I increase my downloads?