Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research

BMC Medical Ethics

Kristian Pollock¹ 

[1] School of Nursing, Midwifery and Physiotherapy, University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, Derby Road, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK

关键词: Principalism;    Micro ethics;    Empirical ethics;    Bioethics;    Qualitative research;   

Others  :  800024
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-13-25

 received in 2012-05-17, accepted in 2012-09-18,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Research is fundamental to improving the quality of health care. The need for regulation of research is clear. However, the bureaucratic complexity of research governance has raised concerns that the regulatory mechanisms intended to protect participants now threaten to undermine or stifle the research enterprise, especially as this relates to sensitive topics and hard to reach groups.

Discussion

Much criticism of research governance has focused on long delays in obtaining ethical approvals, restrictions imposed on study conduct, and the inappropriateness of evaluating qualitative studies within the methodological and risk assessment frameworks applied to biomedical and clinical research. Less attention has been given to the different epistemologies underlying biomedical and qualitative investigation. The bioethical framework underpinning current regulatory structures is fundamentally at odds with the practice of emergent, negotiated micro-ethics required in qualitative research. The complex and shifting nature of real world settings delivers unanticipated ethical issues and (occasionally) genuine dilemmas which go beyond easy or formulaic ‘procedural’ resolution. This is not to say that qualitative studies are ‘unethical’ but that their ethical nature can only be safeguarded through the practice of ‘micro-ethics’ based on the judgement and integrity of researchers in the field.

Summary

This paper considers the implications of contrasting ethical paradigms for the conduct of qualitative research and the value of ‘empirical ethics’ as a means of liberating qualitative (and other) research from an outmoded and unduly restrictive research governance framework based on abstract prinicipalism, divorced from real world contexts and values.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Pollock; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fudge N, Redfern J, Wolfe C, McKevitt C: Streamlined research governance: are we there yet? BMJ 2010, 341:635-637.
• [2]Ezzat H, Ross S, von Dadelszen P, Morris T, Liston R, Magee LA, Cpn Collaborative Group: Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective. BMC Health Services Research 2010., 10(223) BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Academy of Medical Sciences: Reaping the rewards: a vision for UK medical science. London: Academy of Medical Sciences; 2010.
• [4]Dingwall R: The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. 21st Century Research 2008, 3(1):1-12.
• [5]Wiles R, Coffey A, Robinson J, Prosser J: Ethical Regulation and Visual Methods: Making visual research impossible or developing good practice? In NCRM Working Paper Series. London: ESRC; 2010.
• [6]Lilleyman J, Warlow C: Is regulation of clinical research damaging public health? Science and Public Affairs 2007, 4-5. http://www.britishscienceassociation.org/web/News/ReportsandPublications/Magazine/MagazineArchive/SPAArchive/SPASept07/SPATalkSeptember07.htm webcite
• [7]Rustin M: The risks of assessing ethical risks. Sociological Research Online 2010, 14(4):18.
• [8]Hammersley M: Creeping ethical regulation and the strangling of research. Sociological Research Online 2010, 15(4):16.
• [9]Librett M, Perrone D: Apples and oranges: ethnography and the IRB. Qualitative Research 2010, 10(6):729-747.
• [10]Rumbold B, Lewis G, Bardsley M: Access to person-level data in health care, a research summary. London: Nuffield Trust; 2011.
• [11]Metcalfe C, Martin RM, Noble S, Lane JA, Hamdy FC, Neal DE, Donovan J: Low risk research using routinely collected identifiable health information without informed consent: encounters with the Patient Information Advisory Group. Journal Medical Ethics 2008, 34(1):37-40.
• [12]Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J: Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. New England Journal of Medicine 2011, 365:1145-1150.
• [13]Van Teijlingen E, Douglas F, Torrance N: Clinical governance and research ethics as barriers to UK low-risk population-based health research? BMC Public Health 2008., 8(396) BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Elwyn G, Seagrove A, Thorne K, Cheung WY: Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. BMJ 2005, 330:847.
• [15]Stewart PM, Stears A, Tomlinson JW, Brown MJ: Regulation - the real threat to clinical research. BMJ 2008, 337:a1732.
• [16]Simpson B: Ethical moments: future directions for ethical review and ethnography. JRAI 2011, 17:377-393.
• [17]Haggerty KD: Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 2004, 27(4):391-414.
• [18]Murphy E, Dingwall R: Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science and Medicine 2007, 65:2223-2234.
• [19]Academy of Medical Sciences: Personal data for public good: using health information in medical research, Report of proceedings at the legal symposium. London: Academy of Medical Sciences; 2006.
• [20]Wald DS: Bureaucracy of ethics applications. BMJ 2004, 329:282-285.
• [21]Jones AM, Bamford B: The other face of research governance. BMJ 2004, 329:280-282.
• [22]Chenhall R, Senior K, Belton S: Negotiating human research ethics. Case notes from anthropologists in the field. Anthropology Today 2011, 27(5):13-17.
• [23]Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, Lucy B, Jacoby A, Peters T, Frankel S, Neal D, Hamdy F, The Protect Study Group: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. BMJ 2002, 325:766-770.
• [24]Gibson G, Timlin A, Curran S, Wattis J: The scope for qualitative methods in research and clinical trials in dementia. Age Ageing 2004, 33(4):422-426.
• [25]Corrigan M, Cupples ME, Smith SM, Byrne M, Leathem CS, Clerkin P, Murphy AW: The contribution of qualitative research in designing a complex intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in two different healthcare systems. BMC Health Services Research 2006, 6:90. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]de Salis I, Tomlin Z, Toerien M, Donovan J: Qualitative research to improve RCT recruitment: Issues arising in establishing research collaborations. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2008, 29:663-670.
• [27]Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R, Brunton G, Kavanagh J: Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ 2004, 328:1010-1012.
• [28]Pleschberger S, Seymour J, Payne S, Deschepper R, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Rurup ML: Interviews on end-of-life care with older people: reflections on six European studies. Qualitative Health Research 2011, 21(11):1588-1600.
• [29]Thorne B: "You still takin' notes?" fieldwork and problems of informed consent. Social Problems 1980, 27(3):284-297.
• [30]Ooye C, Bjelland AK, Skorpen A: Doing participant observation in a psychiatric hospital - Research ethics resumed. Social Science and Medicine 2007, 65:2296-2306.
• [31]Corbin J, Morse JM: The unstructured interactive interview:issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry 2003, 9:335.
• [32]Wood A, Grady C, Emanuel EJ: Regional ethics organizations for protection of human research participants. Nature Medicine 2004, 10(12):1283-1288.
• [33]Moody-Corbett P: Streamlining research ethics review CIHR and the strategy for patient-oriented research. CIHR 2012. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:xxQleRIwDMgJ:www.cannectin.ca/workfiles/sg/Moody_Corbett_Slides.pdf+Moody+Corbett+Streamlining+research+review&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShPLO5DX7kQCKbgc84rDa5k2-ufaQPkDNf1jHHg7RQoL-zQDwGQ3B8LWq88hGanzz2BJSx_Fbd9yT5aKQN0VbJz9owDKCnnSh2jvFhrtTk16vOFU8C-sxpxcR4IVtO_755Y89qA&sig=AHIEtbS13wr5gjqFVqoSOjxjr6QNHpaNYQ webcite. Accessed 24.9.12.
• [34]Jenkins R, Bennett J, Frommer M, Madriono C: A streamlined national approach to scientific and ethics review of multi-centre health and medical research in Australia. Issues and Options. Sydney: AHMAC; 2006.
• [35]Allyse M, Karkazis K, Lee SS-J, Tobin SL, Greely HT, Cho MK, Magnus D: Informational risk, institutional review, and autonomy in the proposed changes to the common rule. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2012, 34(3):17-19.
• [36]Network HSR: The new research governance landscape. London: NHS Confederation; 2009.
• [37]NIHR Research Support Services: Streamlining the Management and Governance of R&D Studies in the NHS. London: NIHR; 2009.
• [38]Academy of Medical Sciences: A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences; 2011.
• [39]Dobson C: Conducting research with people not having the capacity to consent to their participation, A practical guide for researchers. London: British Psychological Society; 2008.
• [40]Lawton J: Gaining and maintaining consent: ethical concerns raised in a study of dying patients. Qualitative Health Research 2001, 11:693-705.
• [41]Wax ML: Paradoxes of "consent" to the practice of fieldwork. Social Problems 1980, 27(3):272-283.
• [42]Corrigan O: Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health and Illness 2003, 25(3):768-792.
• [43]Pels P: Professions of duplexity, a prehistory of ethical codes in anthropology. Current Anthropology 1999, 40(2):101-136.
• [44]Clark S, Weale A: Information governance in health, An anlysis of the social values involved in data linkage studies. London: Nuffield Trust; 2011.
• [45]Chambers E: Fieldwork and the law: new contexts for ethical decision making. Social Problems 1980, 27(3):330-341.
• [46]Bolton M, Parker M: Informed consent in a changing environment. Social Science and Medicine 2007, 65:2187-2198.
• [47]The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects on Biomedical and Behavioral Research: The Belmont Report, Ethical Guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington DC: Office of Human Subjects Research; 1979.
• [48]Adshead G: Studying the mind: ethical issues and guidance in mental health research. Clinical Ethics 2008, 3:141-144.
• [49]Beauchamp TL, Childress JF: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
• [50]Andereck W: From patient to consumer in the medical marketplace. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2007, 16:109-113.
• [51]Fistein EC, Holland AJ, Clare ICH, Gunn MJ: A comparison of mental health legislation from diverse Commonwealth jurisdictions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2009, 32:147-155.
• [52]Christakis NA: Ethics are local: engaging cross-cultural variation in the ethics for clinical research. Social Science and Medicine 1992, 35(9):1079-1091.
• [53]Weindling P: The origins of informed consent: the international scientific commission on medical war crimes, and the Nuremberg Code. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 2001, 75(1):37-71.
• [54]Redfern M, Keeling J, Powell E: The report of the Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry. London: House of Commons; 2001.
• [55]Suntharalingam G, Perry MR, Ward S, Brett SJ, Castello-Cortes A, Brunner MD, Panoskaltsis N: Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412. New England Journal of Medicine 2006, 355:1018-1028.
• [56]Pappworth M: Human Guinea Pigs, Experimentation on Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin; 1969.
• [57]Milgram S: Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1963, 67(4):371-378.
• [58]Haney C, Banks C, Zimbardo P: A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Washington DC: Office of Naval Research; 1973:1-17. [Naval Research Reviews]
• [59]Beecher HK: Human Guinea Pigs: Experimentation on Man. Aylesbury: Routledge Kegan Paul; 1967.
• [60]Reverby SM: More than Fact and Fiction, Cultural Memory and the Tuskagee Syphilis Study. Hastings: Hastings Centre Report; 2001.
• [61]Hurran ET: Patients' rights: from Alder Hey to the Nuremberg Code. History and Policy 2002, 1-10. http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-03.html webcite 153: Accessed 24.9.12
• [62]Zion D, Gillam L, Loff B: The Declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nature Medicine 2000, 6(6):615-617.
• [63]Koski G, Nightingale SL: Research involving human subjects in developing countries. New England Journal of Medicine 2001, 345(2):136-138.
• [64]Lurie P, Greco DB: U.S. exceptionalism comes to research ethics. Lancet 2005, 365(9465):1117-1119.
• [65]Goodyear M, Lemmens T, Sprumont D, Tangwa G: The FDA and the Declaration of Helsinki: a new rule seems to be more about imperialism than harmonisation. BMJ 2009, 338:1557-1159.
• [66]Hearnshaw H: Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive medical study. BMJ 2004, 328:140-141.
• [67]Angell EL, Sutton AJ, Windridge K, Dixon-Woods M: Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics 2006, 32:662-664.
• [68]Ceci SJ, Peters D, Plotkin J: Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist 1985, 40(9):994-1002.
• [69]Dixon-Woods M, Angell EL: Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted their requirements? Journal Medical Ethics 2009, 35:377-381.
• [70]Schipper I: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries: How to protect people against unethical practices?. Brussels: European Parliament; 2009.
• [71]Rothman KJ, Michels KB, Baum M: Declaration of Helsinki should be strengthened: for and against. BMJ 2000, 321:442-445.
• [72]Tollman SJ: What are the effects of the fifth revision of the Declaration of Helsinki? BMJ 2001, 323:1417-1423.
• [73]Carlson RV, Boyd KM, Webb DJ: The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2004, 57(6):695-713.
• [74]Academy of Medical Sciences: A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research. London: Academy of Medical Sciences; 2011.
• [75]Dixon-Woods M, Yeung K: Governing health services research: is it working?. London: Health Services Research Network; 2010.
• [76]Lowes L, Gill P: Participants' experiences of being interviewed about an emotive topic. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2006, 55(5):587-595.
• [77]Casarett D, Ferrell B, Kirschling J, Levetown M, Merriman MP, Ramey M, Sliverman P: NHPCO task force statement on the ethics of hospice participation in research. Journal of Palliative Medicine 2001, 4(4):441-449.
• [78]Graham J, Lewis J, Nicolaas G: Ethical Relations, A review of literature on empirical studies of ethical requirements and research participation. In ESRC Research Methods Programme Working Paper no 30. London: ESRC; 2006.
• [79]Carter SM, Jordens CFC, McGrath C, Little M: You have to make something of all that rubbish, do you? An empirical investigation of the social process of qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 2008, 18(9):1264-1276.
• [80]Tallon D, Mulligan J, Wiles N, Thomas L, Peters TJ, Elgie R, Sharp D, Lewis G: Involving patients with depression in research. British Journal of General Practice 2011, 61(585):134-141.
• [81]Pesson H, Galieta M, Nelson CJ, Brescia R, Rosenfeld B, Breitbart W: Burden and benefit of psychosocial research at the end of life. Journal of Palliative Medicine 2008, 11(4):627-632.
• [82]Rosenblatt PC: Ethics of qualitative interviewing with grieving families. Death Studies 1995, 19:139-155.
• [83]Clark T: On 'being researched': why do people engage with qualitative research? Qualitative Research 2010, 10(4):399-419.
• [84]Felt U, Bister M, Strassnig M, Wagner U: Refusing the information paradigm: informed consent, medical research, and patient participation. Health 2009, 13(1):87-106.
• [85]AlQurainy R, Collis E, Feuer D: Dying in an acute hospital setting: the challenges and solutions. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2009, 63(3):508-515.
• [86]Dewing J: From Ritual to Relationship: A person-centred approach to consent in qualitative research with older people who have a dementia. Dementia 2002, 1:157-170.
• [87]Davies K, Collerton JC, Jagger C, Bond J, Barker SA, Edwards J, Hughes J, Hunt JM, Robinson L: Engaging the oldest old in research: lessons from the Newcastle 85+ study. BMC Geriatrics 2010., 10(64) BioMed Central Full Text
• [88]Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft R, Jackson CJ, Tobin MD, Kivits J, Burton PR, Samani NJ: Beyond "misunderstanding": Written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Social Science and Medicine 2007, 65:2212-2222.
• [89]Willis KF, Robinson A, Wood-Baker R, Turner P, Walters EH: Participating in research: exploring participation and engagement in a study of self-management for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Qualitative Health Research 2011, 21(9):1273-1282.
• [90]Watts JW: Emotion, empathy and exit: reflections on doing ethnographic qualitative research on sensitive topics. Medical Sociology Online 2008, 3(2):3-14.
• [91]Hepworth J, Robertson ARR, Jhunjhunwala A, Jarvis GC, McVittie C: Cancer-related psychosocial research: what are the perspectives of cancer care centre users on participation? Supportive Care Cancer 2010, 19:1029-1035.
• [92]Reed K: The Spectre of Research Ethics and Governance and the ESRC's 2010 FRE: Nowhere Left to Hide? Sociological Research Online 2010, 2010:15(4).
• [93]Locock L, Smith L: Personal experiences of taking part in clinical trials - A qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling 2011, 84:303-309.
• [94]Guillemin M, Gillam L: Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry 2004, 10(2):261-280.
• [95]Eliott JA, Olver IN: End-of-life decision making is more than rational. Communication and Medicine 2005, 2(1):21-34.
• [96]Jenkins VA, Anderson JL, Falllowfield L: Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature from January 2005 to July 2009. Supportive Care Cancer 2010, 18:1115-1121.
• [97]Gammelgaard A, Rossel P, Steen Mortensen O: Patients' perceptions of informed consent in acute myocardial infarction research: a Danish study. Social Science and Medicine 2004, 58:2313-2324.
• [98]Musschenga AW: Empirical ethics, context-sensitivity and contextualism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2005, 30:1-24.
• [99]Slaughter S, Cole D, Jennings E, Reimer MA: Consent and assent to participate in research from people with dementia. Nursing Ethics 2007, 14(1):27-40.
• [100]Wilson E, Pollock K, Aubeeluck A: Gaining and maintaining consent when capacity can be an issue. A research study with people with Huntington’s disease. Clinical Ethics 2010, 5:142-147.
• [101]ESRC: Research Ethics Framework. London: ESRC; 2005.
• [102]Burling R: Linguistics and Ethnographic Description. American Anthropologist. 1969, 71:817-827.
• [103]Schensul SL: Anthropological fieldwork and sociopolitical change. Social Problems 1980, 27(3):309-319.
• [104]May WF: Doing ethics: The bearing of ethical theories on fieldwork. Social Problems 1980, 27(3):358-370.
• [105]British Sociological Association: Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association. Durham: British Sociological Association; 2002.
• [106]Office for Human Research Protections: International Compilation of Human Research Protections. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
• [107]Department of Health: The Mental Capacity Act, Factsheet for Social Scientists. London: Department of Health; 2009.
• [108]Public Guardianship Office: Mental Capacity Act 2005, Code of Practice. London: The Stationery Office; 2005.
• [109]MRC: Personal Information in Medical Research, Executive Summary. London: Medical Research Council; 2003.
• [110]Department of Health: Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consent for research. London: Department of Health; 2005.
• [111]de Vries MC, Houtlosser M, Wit JM, Engberts DP, Bresters D, Kaspers GL, van Leeuwen E: Ethical issues at the interface of clinical care and research practice in pediatric oncology: a narrative review of parents' and physicians' experiences. BMC Medical Ethics 2011, 12(18):28.
• [112]Wiles R: Informed Consent and the Research Process. London: ESRC; 2005.
• [113]O'Brien J, Chantler C: Confidentiality and the duties of care. Journal Medical Ethics 2003, 39:36-40.
• [114]Sherwin S: A Relational Approach to Autonomy in Health Care. In The Politics of Women's Health, Exploring Agency and Autonomy. Edited by Sherwin S. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1998:19-47.
• [115]Broadstock M, Michie S: Processes of patient decision making: theoretical and methodological issues. Psychology and Health 2000, 15:191-204.
• [116]Dixon-Woods M: Writing wrongs? An analysis of published discourses about the use of patient information leaflets. Social Science and Medicine 2001, 52(9):1417-1432.
• [117]Dixon-Woods M, Tarrant C: Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies. Social Science and Medicine 2009, 68:2215-2222.
• [118]Reynolds WW, Nelson RM: Risk perception and decision processes underlying informed consent to research participation. Social Science and Medicine 2007, 65:2015-2115.
• [119]Tauber AI: Sick autonomy. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 2003, 46(4):484-495.
• [120]Cribb A, Eckstein S: Approaching Qualitative Research. In Manual for Research Ethics Committees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
• [121]Orton-Johnson K: Ethics in online research: evaluating the ESRC framework for research ethics categorisation of risk. Sociological Research Online 2010, 14(4):13.
• [122]Spicker P: Ethical covert research. Sociology 2011, 45(1):118-133.
• [123]Lewis J, Graham J: Research participants' views on ethics in social research: issues for research ethics committees. Research Ethics Review 2007, 3(3):73-79.
• [124]Coomber R: Sigining your life away?: Why Research Ethics Committees (REC) shouldn't always require written confirmation that participants in research have been informed of the aims of a study and their rights - the case of criminal populations. Sociological Research Online 2002., 7(1) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/1/coomber.html webcite
• [125]Kaiser K: Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 2009, 19(11):1632-1641.
• [126]PIAG: Confidentiality and disclosure of patient information: HIV and Sexual transmitted infections. PIAG; 2006.
• [127]ASA: Ethical guidelines for good research practice. London: Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and the Commonwealth; 2011.
• [128]Wiles R, Crow G, Heath S, Charles V: The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2007, 11(5):417-428.
• [129]Israel M: Strictly confidential? integrity and the disclosure of criminological and socio-legal research. British Journal of Criminology 2004, 44(4):715-740.
• [130]ESRC: Framework for Research Ethics. Swindon: ESRC; 2010.
• [131]ESRC: The Research Ethics Guidebook, a Resource for Social Scientists. http://www.ethicsguidebook.ac.uk/Limits-of-confidentiality-a-duty-of-care-97 webcite
• [132]Lowman J, Palys T: The research confidentiality controversy at Simon Fraser University. Sociological Practice: A Journal of Clinical and Applied Sociology 2000., 2(4) http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Controversy.htm webcite
• [133]Lee RM: Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage; 1993.
• [134]Brinkmann S, Kvale S: Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 2006, 18(2):157-181.
• [135]World Medical Association: Declaration of Helsinki. World Medical Association; 2008. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ webcite
• [136]Mental Capacity Act: Mental Capacity Act. London: The Stationery Office; 2005.
• [137]Widdershoven GAM, Berghmans RLP: Advance directives in dementia care: from instructions to instruments. Patient Education and Counseling 2001, 44:179-186.
• [138]Berghmans RLP, ter Meulen RHJ: Ethical issues in research with dementia patients. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 1995, 10:647-651.
• [139]Rid A, Schmidt H: The 2008 Declaration of Helsinki - first among equals in research ethics? Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics 2010, 38(1):143-148.
• [140]American Anthropological Association: Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association. Arlington VA; 1998.
• [141]Hoffmaster C: Can ethnography save the life of medical ethics? Social Science and Medicine 1992, 35:1421-1431.
• [142]Parker M: Two concepts of empirical ethics. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):202-213.
• [143]Dierckx De Casterle B, Grypdonck M, Cannaerts N, Steeman E: Empirical ethics in action: lessons from two empirical studies in nursing ethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2004, 7:31-39.
• [144]Borry P, Schotsmans P, Dierickx K: Empirical ethics: A challenge to bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2004, 7:1-3.
• [145]Cook AS: Ethical issues in bereavement research: an overview. Death Studies 2001, 19:103-122.
• [146]Stanley L, Wise S: The ESRC's 2010 framework for research ethics: fit for research purpose? Sociological Research Online 2010, 15(4):12.
• [147]Moore TF, Hollett J: Giving voice to persons living with dementia: the researcher's opportunities and challenges. Nursing Science Quarterly 2003, 16:163.
• [148]Addington-Hall J: Research sensitivities to palliative care patients. European Journal of Cancer Care 2002, 11:220-224.
• [149]Department of Health: Health and Social Care Bill. London: The Stationery Office; 2011.
• [150]CIHR: Canada's Strategy for Patient Centred Research, Improving health outcomes through evidence informed care. Ottowa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2011.
• [151]Helgesson G, Eriksson S: Against the principle that the individual shall have priority over science. Journal Medical Ethics 2008, 34:54-56.
• [152]Cowdell F: Engaging older people with dementia in research: myth or possiblity. International Journal of Older People Nursing 2008, 29-34.
• [153]Cuenod M, Gasser J: Research on the mentally incompetent. Journal Medical Ethics 2003, 29:19-21.
• [154]Melton GB, Levine RJ, Koocher GP, Rosenthal R, Thompson WA: Community consultation in socially sensitive research, lessons from clinial trials of treatments for AIDS. American Psychologist 1988, 43(7):573-581.