Education versus screening
- Kong, Camillia, Efrem, Mehret, Campbell, Megan M
- Authors: Kong, Camillia , Efrem, Mehret , Campbell, Megan M
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/302461 , vital:58198 , xlink:href="http:// 10.1136/medethics-2019-105396"
- Description: Informed consent procedures for participation in psychiatric genomics research among individuals with mental disorder and intellectual disability can often be unclear, particularly because the underlying ethos guiding consent tools reflects a core ethical tension between safeguarding and inclusion. This tension reflects important debates around the function of consent tools, as well as the contested legitimacy of decision-making capacity thresholds to screen potentially vulnerable participants. Drawing on human rights, person-centred psychiatry and supported decisionmaking, this paper problematises the use of consent procedures as screening tools in psychiatric genomics studies, particularly as increasing normative emphasis has shifted towards the empowerment and participation of those with mental disorder and intellectual disabilities. We expound on core aspects of supported decisionmaking, such as relational autonomy and hermeneutic competence, to orient consent procedures towards a more educative, participatory framework that is better aligned with developments in disability studies. The paper concludes with an acknowledgement of the pragmatic and substantive challenges in adopting this framework in psychiatric genomics studies if this participatory ethos towards persons with mental disorder and intellectual disability is to be fully realised.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Kong, Camillia , Efrem, Mehret , Campbell, Megan M
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/302461 , vital:58198 , xlink:href="http:// 10.1136/medethics-2019-105396"
- Description: Informed consent procedures for participation in psychiatric genomics research among individuals with mental disorder and intellectual disability can often be unclear, particularly because the underlying ethos guiding consent tools reflects a core ethical tension between safeguarding and inclusion. This tension reflects important debates around the function of consent tools, as well as the contested legitimacy of decision-making capacity thresholds to screen potentially vulnerable participants. Drawing on human rights, person-centred psychiatry and supported decisionmaking, this paper problematises the use of consent procedures as screening tools in psychiatric genomics studies, particularly as increasing normative emphasis has shifted towards the empowerment and participation of those with mental disorder and intellectual disabilities. We expound on core aspects of supported decisionmaking, such as relational autonomy and hermeneutic competence, to orient consent procedures towards a more educative, participatory framework that is better aligned with developments in disability studies. The paper concludes with an acknowledgement of the pragmatic and substantive challenges in adopting this framework in psychiatric genomics studies if this participatory ethos towards persons with mental disorder and intellectual disability is to be fully realised.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
Prioritising African perspectives in psychiatric genomics research
- Kamaara, Eunice, Kong, Camillia, Campbell, Megan M
- Authors: Kamaara, Eunice , Kong, Camillia , Campbell, Megan M
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/302520 , vital:58204 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12248"
- Description: Psychiatric genomics research with African populations comes with a range of practical challenges around translation of psychiatric genomics research concepts, procedures, and nosology. These challenges raise deep ethical issues particularly around legitimacy of informed consent, a core foundation of research ethics. Through aconsideration of the constitutive function of language, the paper problematises like‐for‐like, designative translations which often involve the ‘indigenization’ of English terms or use of metaphors which misrepresent the risks and benefits of research. This paper argues that effective translation of psychiatric genomics research terminology in African contexts demands substantive engagement with African conceptual schemas and values. In developing attenuated forms of translational thinking, researchers may recognise the deeper motivational reasons behind participation in research, highlighting the possibility that such reasons may depart from the original meaning implied within informed consent forms. These translational issues might be ameliorated with a critical re-examination of how researchers develop and present protocols to institutional ethics review boards.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- Authors: Kamaara, Eunice , Kong, Camillia , Campbell, Megan M
- Date: 2020
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/302520 , vital:58204 , xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12248"
- Description: Psychiatric genomics research with African populations comes with a range of practical challenges around translation of psychiatric genomics research concepts, procedures, and nosology. These challenges raise deep ethical issues particularly around legitimacy of informed consent, a core foundation of research ethics. Through aconsideration of the constitutive function of language, the paper problematises like‐for‐like, designative translations which often involve the ‘indigenization’ of English terms or use of metaphors which misrepresent the risks and benefits of research. This paper argues that effective translation of psychiatric genomics research terminology in African contexts demands substantive engagement with African conceptual schemas and values. In developing attenuated forms of translational thinking, researchers may recognise the deeper motivational reasons behind participation in research, highlighting the possibility that such reasons may depart from the original meaning implied within informed consent forms. These translational issues might be ameliorated with a critical re-examination of how researchers develop and present protocols to institutional ethics review boards.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2020
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »