S Grover

This article argues that investigators doing developmental and social research with children have, for the most part, failed to acknowledge the inherent implications of their work for children's rights. The impact of these studies upon children's rights occurs at every stage; from hypothesis formulation to hypothesis testing to dissemination of findings. This paper addresses the issue in the context of developmental research on children's ability to report experienced events accurately. This particular research area has generated data that has been extrapolated to legal contexts and created a foundation for assumptions about the credibility of child witnesses. This in turn has had profound effects on children's right to be heard and the weight given to their testimony. The argument is made that there is a need for social scientists to explicitly articulate how their work may impact upon children's rights and what is in fact the social agenda in this regard underlying their research.

Five hundred adults indicated their preferences about the fairness and ethics of allocating scarce medical interventions. They also completed an IQ test, a measure of self-esteem and the extent to which they believed in a Just World, as well as General Conspiracy Theories. Results confirmed previous studies which showed a strong preference for the Utilitarian “saves most lives,” followed by the Prioritization “sickest first” and “youngest first,” preferences. Correlations and regressions indicated relatively few significant individual difference correlates of allocation preferences, with IQ being the major exception. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Studying the most ethical way to allocate scarce medical resources has been of interest within the last year, due to shortages associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to establish differences between what healthcare providers (HCP) and laypeople consider to be the most ethical way to prioritise the distribution of scarce resources. Healthcare providers ( n = 100) and laypeople ( n = 102) were asked to rank ethical principles from most to least ethical for the allocation of ICU beds in a COVID-19 outbreak, COVID-19 vaccinations and organ transplantation, and the rankings from each scenario across the two groups were compared. Results indicated that HCPs preferred utilitarian principles informed by medical knowledge, such as ‘prognosis’, whereas laypeople preferred less situation-specific and prioritarian principles, such as ‘sickest first’, replicating pre-pandemic findings. Laypeople showed increased in-group agreement when ranking principles, potentially due to the collective experience of the pandemic. Demographic variables such as older age, identifying as Black, Asian or minority ethnic and greater experience with COVID-19, were also associated with a preference for ‘prognosis’.

Whats human rights got to do with it? That is, whats human rights got to do with the June 2004 report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Ethics Special Working Committee to the Inter-Agency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. The disturbing answer is not enough. Certain key recommendations of the working committee, it is suggested, would unacceptably weaken the researchers legal and moral accountability to research participants. Those particular recommendations rely on misguided references to academic freedom and the nature of the non-medical research context. In fact, universal human rights, and the legal instruments in which they are embodied ought to inform the research endeavor at every stage; from problem selection to analysis and conclusions. This will lead us closer to shared truths rather than simply to the academic elites vision of truth. Without sufficient regard for the human rights of research participants academic freedom itself is not possible.

This paper considers what are the appropriate limits of parental or guardian proxy consent for a child's participation in medical or social science research. Such proxy consent, it is proposed, is invalid in regards “non-therapeutic research.” The latter research may add to scientific knowledge and/or benefit others, but any benefit to the child research participant is but a coincidental theoretical possibility and not a primary objective. Research involving children, without intended and acceptable prospect of beneficial outcome to the individual participant, even if with negligible risk, does not meet the test for “best interests.” Proxy consent for children's involvement in research is justifiable only when given for and on behalf of the child in his or her best interest to enhance the child's well-being. Only in the latter case is the parental proxy consent situation analogous in regards key criteria to a competent individual consenting to research participation.

Background: Risks to healthcare workers have escalated during the pandemic and they are likely to experience a greater level of stress. This cross-sectional study investigated mental distress among healthcare workers during the early phase of Coronavirus disease-2019 outbreak in India.Method: 140 healthcare workers of a tertiary care hospital in India were assessed for perceived stress and insomnia. A factor analysis with principal component method reduced these questions to four components which were categorized as insomnia, stress-related anxiety, stress-related irritability, and stress-related hopelessness. Further statistical analyses were done on these factor scores to identify the predictors and investigate the differences between the different categories of healthcare workers.Result: Doctors had the highest level of anxiety among the healthcare workers. Both doctors and nurses perceived a greater level of irritability than the other HCWs. Compared to doctors and nurses, other HCWs were more likely to experience insomnia. Lower age, higher education, female gender, and urban habitat were associated with greater perception of anxiety. Older age, being quarantined, and single marital status were the significant predictors of irritability. Female gender, single marital-status, and higher number of medical ailments contributed to perceived hopelessness. Quarantine significantly predicted insomnia.Conclusion: Different categories of healthcare workers are experiencing varied mental health problems owing to their heterogeneous socio-demographic backgrounds. Tailored and personalized care, as well as policies, might help in alleviating their problems. Further research is warranted to explore the psychological distress and remedies among these frontline workers during and after the ongoing pandemic crisis.