ETHICS OF RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY

CHAPTER 3 – TERRAGO

Psychological and psychiatric research can be defined as the intellectual operation aimed at expanding

knowledge about the human psyche with observation, clinical, or experimental methods, which allow the

data obtained to be verified through evaluation or repetition made by researchers other than those who

conducted the research. out the observation.

Nuremberg Code – developed after medical experimentation carried out by the Nazis – establishes the key

ethical criterion that permeates all dimensions of research with human beings: the right to give valid consent

or an informed decision. Since the Nuremberg trials, this ethical imperative has become unavoidably

obligatory for every person-health professional relationship (including research).

At the same time, it establishes that every experiment must be conducted in such a way as to avoid any

physical or mental suffering or injury. The risk of harm that an individual who participates in psychological

research may suffer is psychological (e.g. Deterioration of self-esteem, insecurity, feelings of guilt,

distortion or disregard of their previous moral orientation, confusion, fears, phobias or any negative

emotional reaction to specific experiences)

MAIN ETHICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT ARISE WITH PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH They can be placed

in a diachronic sense:

1. Before making contact with the subjects – When starting the investigation:

- Weakness of some justifications: The ethical justification that is usually given is that it is

necessary to do so because the results of the study will result in benefits for both the individual

and humanity. The reality is that there is no unanimity on what should be considered beneficial to

humanity, nor whether these benefits outweigh the possible harm or risks that may be caused.

Nor is it completely true that all research or experimentation is sought only for a benefit for

humanity or for the specific subject (Eg. Academic commitments, need for intellectual prestige)
 - Discrimination in the choice of subjects: The question arises if ethical behavior is considered to

be that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (utilitarian reasoning),

is it preferable to sacrifice the well-being of a small vulnerable number - children, prisoners,

feeble-minded or other vulnerable people - to seek good in the greatest number?

- Invasion of privacy: It arises especially in the field of social psychology in which many designs

are based on the observation of subjects with or without their consent.

- The random distribution technique: The ethical difficulty occurs in those situations in which what

we are trying to discover is the effectiveness of certain therapeutic procedures. When the

technique of chance is put into practice, some of the individuals become part of the group that

receives regular therapy (and therefore benefit from something safe and proven) while others

receive experimental therapy or simply no treatment, thus which could be harmed.

2. During the development of the research: The problem of manipulation of the individual's identity is

the worst risk and the most serious dilemma that arises with psychological research.

- The risk of psychological damage has been investigated by Schuler, he has tried to evaluate the

possible psychological disorders that may have been caused by the investigations. He has found

the production of individual personality disorders in some of the volunteer subjects who, after the

research, required therapy. It has detected that the information provided to the subjects or the

conduct carried out in the research, when it is incompatible with the image that the subject has of

himself, can cause prolonged changes in said self-image, data about himself could be revealed to

the subject. the same for whose consequences the researcher is later not responsible.

However, it has been seen that the probability of permanent damage due to the psychic tension

suffered during the research process can be reduced through an adequate post-experimental

explanation (although the possibility of permanent damage cannot be totally eliminated).

3. After the data has been collected

 - Post-experimental disclosure: It has been argued that the negative effects of research can be

eliminated with post-experimental disclosure. There are two types of ethical arguments in favor

of it: the deontological (considers that it is the right of every person who has participated in a

research to know what the real purpose was and to find out where to go to find out the results).

The utilitarian (postulates that the explanation should be made because it is convenient, it reduces

the possibility of harm, it commits individuals not to reveal what the research intends to other

possible participants, it serves as learning for the individual, it verifies the effectiveness of the

experimental manipulations made)

- Prejudicial interpretation of the researcher: Scientists tend to see experimental objects differently

depending on their schemas. There are certain epistemological predispositions to accept certain

hypotheses as true and reject others as false. This subjective predisposition plays an important

role when making biased working hypotheses, selecting data, or highlighting particular data.

MAIN ETHICAL CRITERIA FOR PSYCHO-PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH

Tokyo Declaration (1975) establishes a series of guidelines:

1. The research must be done by people scientifically qualified to do so.

2. All research protocols must be submitted to an independent committee for consideration, observation

and approval.

3. The protocol must contain an explicit mention of the ethical considerations given the case and must

indicate whether the established ethical requirements are met.

4. Concern for the interests of individuals must take priority over the interests of science or society.

5. The benefits must be reasonably proportionate in relation to the possible risks

6. The informed consent of individuals should always be required (except in specifically justifiable

cases).

7. The subject must know that he or she can leave the investigation at any time without receiving

retaliation for doing so.

For there to be consent , three conditions must be met:

1. Voluntariness: that the subject is in a position to accept or reject a certain option

2. Competence: that the subject has a factual understanding, that is, that he or she understands the facts

that are going to occur. He has rationality, he reasons correctly from reasonable premises. Correctly

evaluate the consequences, understand the risks and benefits. He has decision-making capacity.

3. Sufficient and adequate information: includes research purposes, objectives, duration, possible risks

and discomforts, expected benefits, how confidentiality will be maintained, declaration that

participation is voluntary, that refusal will not entail any type of punishment.

Failing that, substitute consent is unavoidable.