This paper highlights the need for researchers and research ethics committees to look at the implications of a research study beyond the immediate research question, and the dignity, safety and wellbeing of research subjects, going on to consider whether the results of the study could be detrimental, for example, to more vulnerable groups in society. Although the case studies described come from workplace-based psychosocial research, it is suggested that the lessons drawn from these could be applied more generally.

This paper aims to show that the ethical justifications and the processes for requiring consent for interventional research or treatment are different to requiring consent for the disclosure of patient or subject information. I will argue that these process and theoretical differences are sufficient to view “consent” in the two situations as different concepts and suggest that the phrase “permission to disclose” would be more appropriate in the information disclosure situations.

In the United Kingdom (UK), ethical guidance for doctors assumes a therapeutic setting and a normal doctor–patient relationship. However, doctors with dual obligations may not always operate on the basis of these assumptions in all aspects of their role. In this paper, the situation of UK occupational physicians is described, and a set of models to characterise their different practices is proposed. The interaction between doctor and worker in each of these models is compared with the normal doctor–patient relationship, focusing (...) on the different levels of trust required, the possible power imbalance and the fiduciary obligations that apply. This approach highlights discrepancies between what the UK General Medical Council guidance requires and what is required of a doctor in certain roles or functions. It is suggested that using this modelling approach could also help in clarifying the sources of moral conflict for other doctors with “dual obligations” in their various roles. (shrink)