nurs ethics 2010 gallagher 683 4

8/11/2019 Nurs Ethics 2010 Gallagher 683 4

1/3

http://nej.sagepub.com/ Nursing Ethi cs

http://nej.sagepub.com/content/17/6/683.citationThe online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0969733010384241

2010 17: 683Nurs Ethics Ann GallagherEditorial

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Nursing Ethics Additional services and information for

http://nej.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://nej.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Nov 22, 2010Version of Record>>

by guest on November 13, 2011nej.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/content/17/6/683.citationhttp://nej.sagepub.com/content/17/6/683.citationhttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://nej.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://nej.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://nej.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://nej.sagepub.com/content/17/6/683.full.pdfhttp://nej.sagepub.com/content/17/6/683.full.pdfhttp://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://nej.sagepub.com/content/17/6/683.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://nej.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://nej.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/content/17/6/683.citationhttp://nej.sagepub.com/


2/3

Editorial

Editorial

Ann Gallagher University of Surrey, UK

The ethics of research ethics committees Nurses and other health professionals are members of research ethics or institutional ethical reviewcommittees and engage in the scrutiny of research proposals. They may also submit their research proposalsto these committees, seeking ethical approval to conduct their own research. These committees serve animportant function in protecting the public from harmful or exploitative research; however, they are notimmune from criticism. A colleague shared her experience of observing the work of a research ethics com-mittee as it discussed a research proposal and interviewed the researcher. She used the graphic metaphor of sharks smelling blood and moving in for the kill. Her view was that the committee was overly critical and too concerned with the scientific quality of the proposal rather than keeping the focus on ethical issues. Suchcriticism is not restricted to the UK and I have heard similar views in other countries. Research colleaguesconsider some committees (or groups who conduct ethical review of research proposals) to be obstructive,undermining the expertise of researchers and going beyond their remit of evaluating the ethical aspects of the proposed research. The ethical evaluation of research goes some way towards ensuring the safety and well- being of research participants and also researchers, but cannot guarantee it.

Reviewers for this journal often raise questions regarding the ethical conduct of the research discussed insubmitted manuscripts: Was the research subjected to ethical scrutiny? Was participation voluntary? Were potential participants reassured that no negative consequences would ensue from non-participation? Howwas the process of informed consent conducted? What information was given to potential participantsregarding confidentiality and anonymity? Was a mechanism in place to respond to any participant distress?and, Was appropriate credit given to those who contributed to the research design, data collection and analysis? Most of these issues should be evident in any discussion of the process of ethical scrutiny relatingto empirical research. The ethical dimensions of authorship may not, however, be made explicit. Reviewersor editors need, therefore, to be alert to the possibility that students and others who have helped with researchmay not be acknowledged appropriately, bringing this to the attention of the editor.

The articles in this issue explore a wide range of ethical questions in health care and, where data have beencollected, authors discuss relevant aspects of research ethics. Natalia de Araujo Sartorio and Elma LourdesCampos Pavone Zoboli discuss Brazilian nurse teachers views of a good nurse and refer to the process of informed consent and scrutiny by an institutional ethics committee. Deborah Olmstead and colleagues applya relational approach to ethics in unrelieved pain in children. They refer to existing research in support of their position. The article by Hakan Ertin and co-authors discusses existing research and makes comparisonswith approaches to organ transplantation in other countries and the role of nurses in this process. MartinWoodss article urges reflection on the meaning of cultural safety and the role of the socioethical nurse.

Corresponding author: Ann Gallagher, International Centre for Nursing Ethics, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Universityof Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7TE, UKEmail: [email protected]

Nursing Ethics17(6) 683684

The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav10.1177/0969733010384241

nej.sagepub.com

http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/


3/3

Kayoko Ohnishi and co-researchers detail the development of a moral distress scale for Japanese psychiatricnurses, report on the measure of their moral distress and discuss the correlation between moral distress and burnout. Ethical approval was received from an institutional review board.

Thearticle by Marion Broomeand colleagues examinesa littleexplored research area of particular impor-tance to this journal, that is, the ethical concerns of nursing reviewers. The article suggests the importance of

vigilance on the part of reviewers and recommends that editors improve their communication with thosereviewers who report ethical concerns about submitted manuscripts. Wyona Freysteinson examines a differ-entaspectof research ethics in considering a case study employing theethical communityconsultation modelin relation to a sensitive research area, the experience of mastectomy. Nevin Kuzu Kurban and colleaguesconducted an evaluation of student nurse training in medical law and share their findings. Eileen Creel and Jennifer Robinson examine ethics in independent nurse consulting and suggest three themes that may helpnurse consultants to negotiate the ethical dilemmas of their practice. The final article in this issue, by Elisa- beth Lindahl and colleagues, returns readers to the theme of the good nurse and highlights some of the ethicalchallenges of everyday practice when providing care for people with malodorous ulcers.

Attention to research ethics is evident in the articles in this issue that involve empirical work. The authorsrefer to the role of research ethics committees in the ethical scrutiny and approval of their proposals. This

scrutiny can help researchers to approach their research topic more sensitively, perhaps pointing to ethical blindspots, and highlighting ethical aspects that require more attention. This can improve the experienceof both research participants and researchers. If, however, researchers experience the research ethics com-mittee process as described in the rather startling metaphor above sharks going for the kill it is morelikely to alienate and demoralize researchers than develop their ethical awareness. Questions about the roleof clinical ethics committees in distinguishing between the ethics and the scientific quality of research isdeserving of more attention that it can receive here. In the next issue of Nursing Ethics this will be a topicfor more sustained debate.

684 Nursing Ethics 17(6)

http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/http://nej.sagepub.com/

nurs ethics 2010 gallagher 683 4

Documents