Conflicting Obligations: Considering the Downstream Effects of Human Subjects Research Protections

This article considers the problem of conflicting researcher obligations in RHM, particularly when professional medical rhetoric is analyzed with the goal of improving patient care. Taking one case as illustrative, this article argues that medical professional participants are in positions of relati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inRhetoric of health & medicine Vol. 3; no. 4; pp. 449 - 461
Main Author Reed, Amy R
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Gainesville University Press of Florida 22.09.2020
Subjects
Accountability
Advocacy
Analysis
Care and treatment
Genetic counseling
Medical research
Medicine, Experimental
Patients
Physicians
Professionals
Qualitative research
Recording sessions
Research methodology
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:This article considers the problem of conflicting researcher obligations in RHM, particularly when professional medical rhetoric is analyzed with the goal of improving patient care. Taking one case as illustrative, this article argues that medical professional participants are in positions of relative power, and that their choice to participate in RHM research or not can have downstream effects on more vulnerable patients. Furthermore, this case demonstrates that the interests of medical professional participants may diverge from the interests of their patients. As a result, when RHM researchers assume traditional orientations towards medical professional research participants, they may find themselves unable to advocate for more vulnerable patient populations.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:2573-5055
2573-5063
DOI:10.5744/rhm.2020.4006