4 ms·

I'm concerned you conflate two things. A paranoid psychiatric patient may see a world full of overwhelming risk behind everything. It does not mean that risk ex

I'm concerned you conflate two things. A paranoid psychiatric patient may see a world full of overwhelming risk behind everything. It does not mean that risk exists. It does mean, however, that confirming their paranoia, or seeming to, would cause a panic. We're concerned about the panic because it is unjustified. A good procedure would avoid this unjustified panic. The IRB requires a procedure that doesn't avoid it. In this way, the IRB failed to protect the interest of the patient.

throwawayjava 9y ago
> The IRB requires a procedure that doesn't avoid it The IRB requires getting informed consent from the patient. This is not unreasonable. In fact, IMO, experimenting on people and then publishing the results of those experiments without prior informed consent is grossly unreasonable and creepy. Parent's point is that the author concedes that in a psych ward context, even asking for consent carries serious risks. I'm not sure if this is true because I have no personal experience, but the author seems to believe it is true. Look, it sucks that doing any research in a psych ward carries substantial risk. But that doesn't mean that you can perform experiments on psych patients without their informed consent. Even if you think that the experiment is NBD. Guess what? You're not the patient and it's not your medical data, so it's not your call. Insisting otherwise is incredibly disrespectful and dehumanizing toward psych ward patients. They are humans, they have rights, and an inconvenienced researcher is not a reasonable justification for nullifying those rights. Are there aspects of IRBs that are infuriating and unnecessary? Absolutely. But requiring informed consent before medical data is used in a non-treatment context is -- and should be -- a basic right afforded to every patient. Even psych patients. I hate IRBs, especially for questionnaires, and especially the stupid training. But posts like yours convince me that both are sadly necessary.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> The IRB requires a procedure that doesn't avoid it The IRB requires getting informed consent from the patient. This is not unreasonable. In fact, IMO, experimenting on people and then publishing the results of those experiments without prior informed consent is grossly unreasonable and creepy. Parent's point is that the author concedes that in a psych ward context, even asking for consent carries serious risks. I'm not sure if this is true because I have no personal experience, but the author seems to believe it is true. Look, it sucks that doing any research in a psych ward carries substantial risk. But that doesn't mean that you can perform experiments on psych patients without their informed consent. Even if you think that the experiment is NBD. Guess what? You're not the patient and it's not your medical data, so it's not your call. Insisting otherwise is incredibly disrespectful and dehumanizing toward psych ward patients. They are humans, they have rights, and an inconvenienced researcher is not a reasonable justification for nullifying those rights. Are there aspects of IRBs that are infuriating and unnecessary? Absolutely. But requiring informed consent before medical data is used in a non-treatment context is -- and should be -- a basic right afforded to every patient. Even psych patients. I hate IRBs, especially for questionnaires, and especially the stupid training. But posts like yours convince me that both are sadly necessary.