Gelinas' Arguments on Clinical Research without Informed Consent

Name
Course
Professor
Date
Question 1: Gelinas et al. suggest two conditions according to which it is ethically permissible to conduct clinical research without informed consent. Is their argument persuasive?
Research processes are essential in assessing various societal issues. They use human beings who provide data about their experience concerning the topic under investigation. A controversial issue about research is seeking consent from the participants. Most scholars argue that researchers should seek consent from their participants before involving them in the research. However, Gelinas et al. argue that it is sometimes ethical to use participants in a study without seeking their consent in their research. They suggest two conditions according to which it is ethically permissible to conduct clinical research without informed consent. The first condition is when the research does not infringe the rights of the participants, and it is practically challenging to get consent. The second condition is when the impact of the infringement is minor and that the research benefits outweigh the damage caused to the participant, and when it is impracticable to obtain consent. Gelinas et al.'s arguments are persuasive because it can be practically challenging to obtain consent due to costs incurred, the nature of research, and the minor effects the infringement may have on the participants.
First Condition
The first condition the researchers argue is that research can be carried out without the participant's consent is when the research does not infringe the rights of the respondents. Researchers often seek informed consent to help shield the participants' autonomy, giving them the authority over their role in the research and whether to accept or decline the participation. Personal control over research participation means that the researcher only follows the conditions set by the participant in the research. For example, a researcher may want their identity concealed or to participate only to a certain extent in the research. The researcher should respect that. However, it may not be necessary to seek informed consent in cases where participants do not stand an infringement on their rights. For instance, research that needs the researcher to observe people's behavior may not warrant informed consent since it does not infringe on the rights of the participants— the researchers based their argument on such a case.
Consent helps to protect the interests of the participants. This means that participants would not care about consent if they do not have interests they care about. Giving consent to a research process shows that the participant believes the research advances their interests. Also, consent means that the participants believe that the research fosters their interest (Gelinas et al. 36). For example, a car owner may decline to carry another person who needs urgent transportation for an emergency, yet they have not infringed their rights. Based on the first condition, such an act does not infringe on the rights of the participants. It may be that the person who needs help does not share the same interests as the car owner. For the same reasons, Gelinas et al. believe that informed necessary is not necessary for ...