4 ms·

Said this in another comment, but I'll reiterate here. The big difference is purpose/intent. Looking under the hood of someone's car can be totally fine or a

by xr4ti 9y ago

Said this in another comment, but I'll reiterate here. The big difference is purpose/intent. Looking under the hood of someone's car can be totally fine or a violation depending on whether or not I'm being paid to fix it. Same thing applies here. In one case the questions are being asked to provide treatment the patient is paying for. In the other it's being done to collect data for a publication.

aidenn0 9y ago
Bullshit. If my mechanic wants to publish a paper on wear-and-tear on 4 cylinder engines using just the information he gleaned from doing work on cars that I (and others) paid him for, he has caused zero damage to me versus just doing the work on my car. The same applies here. Patients come in for treatment, and they provide exactly the same questions as if they weren't doing research.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Private information about my mental health is much more personal and sensitive than the wear of my car's engine. Handling that data to an untrained student intent on publishing a paper can cause plenty of harm. I agree, though, that this study could have been done more easily by accessing the patients' records post-facto. But it's not the IRB's fault that the experiment could have been designed better.
  - aidenn0 9y ago
    Yes, mental health information is personal and sensitive, but it looks like the IRB didn't even address patient privacy, it was instead something that came out of a later audit. [edit] Also it seems that post-facto experiments are being encouraged over controlled trials, which seems the opposite of what you want from an experimenters point of view.
    - euyyn 9y ago
      More privacy protections were enforced later according to the account, but the very first protection of them all is asking for consent to use the data. That's what I was getting to. Consent to use your responses to treat you is different from consent to use them for research.

by xr4ti 9y ago

aidenn0 9y ago

Bullshit. If my mechanic wants to publish a paper on wear-and-tear on 4 cylinder engines using just the information he gleaned from doing work on cars that I (and others) paid him for, he has caused zero damage to me versus just doing the work on my car. The same applies here. Patients come in for treatment, and they provide exactly the same questions as if they weren't doing research.

euyyn 9y ago
Private information about my mental health is much more personal and sensitive than the wear of my car's engine. Handling that data to an untrained student intent on publishing a paper can cause plenty of harm. I agree, though, that this study could have been done more easily by accessing the patients' records post-facto. But it's not the IRB's fault that the experiment could have been designed better.
- aidenn0 9y ago
  Yes, mental health information is personal and sensitive, but it looks like the IRB didn't even address patient privacy, it was instead something that came out of a later audit. [edit] Also it seems that post-facto experiments are being encouraged over controlled trials, which seems the opposite of what you want from an experimenters point of view.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    More privacy protections were enforced later according to the account, but the very first protection of them all is asking for consent to use the data. That's what I was getting to. Consent to use your responses to treat you is different from consent to use them for research.