Search

Hermeneutics, also referred to as interpretive phenomenology, has led to important contributions to nursing research. The philosophy of Charles Taylor has been a major source in the development of contemporary hermeneutics, through his ontological and epistemological articulations of the human sciences. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that Taylor's ideas can further enrich hermeneutic inquiry in nursing research, particularly for investigations of ethical concerns. The paper begins with an outline of Taylor's hermeneutical framework, followed by a review of his key ideas relevant for ethics research. The paper ends with a discussion of my empirical research with critically ill children in Canada and France in relation to Taylor's ideas, chiefly Social Imaginaries. I argue that Taylor's hermeneutics provides a substantive moral framework as well as a methodology for examining ethical concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The death of a research participant raises numerous ethical and legal issues regarding the return of research results to related family members. This question is particularly acute in the context of genetic research since the research results from an individual may be relevant to each of the biological relatives. This paper first investigates the ethical and legal frameworks governing the return of a deceased participant's individual research results to his or her related family members. Then, it weighs the rights and interests of both the deceased individual and related family members in an attempt to identify key ethical considerations underlying the return of such results. This analysis of international guidelines and national laws and regulations reveals that though the legal framework regarding privacy and confidentiality of clinical and research information is well established (albeit not homogenous), guidelines are generally absent in the post-mortem context. Nevertheless, a brief analysis of this issue through two ethical perspectives (principlism and consequentialism) allows us to identify six key elements to be taken into consideration when returning a deceased participant's research results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: International policies regulating clinical ethics committees'' (CEC) roles are non-existent. Nonetheless, CECs have established themselves in several countries and there exist striking differences in the way these work. This international practice variation stems from the ways CECs developed, within particular legal, political, social and professional contexts. National guidelines and normative documents have been published in many countries regarding CECs. To better understand CECs'' evolution and differences in various countries, we reviewed guidelines, position statements and normative papers which describe and frame the development of CECs in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and France. Systematic content analysis addressed guideline development, CECs'' roles, consultation methods and CEC members'' education requirements. Differing contexts informed the ways in which guidelines were developed. American CECs, established within a strongly litigious context are perceived to play strong decision-making roles, whereas British CECs, encouraged by clinicians, endorse a more supportive model. Canadian guidelines focus on the role of the ethicist, while the French model is interested in a theoretical interdisciplinary approach. This analysis shows important challenges facing the implementation of accountable CECs in different contexts and can help inform future policy development. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]