Agree, with no further discussion or interference
By choosing this option, I show humility and deference- simply facilitating the wishes of the family. I, in one sense, show that I am the impartial researcher, simply observing what is happening while still offering a little help in redressing the issues of access that are present. I please the members of the community by giving freely of my resources and seem supportive of their choices. Something just doesn’t seem quite right, however. Why do I feel like I should be doing more to stop this? Is this the most ethical choice?
What about the values at risk here?
Respect for Persons Beneficence Justice My Decision |
Respect for persons:
Agreeing to support the wishes of the community, I respect their autonomy in decision-making and aid in their self-determination. I only offer what is asked for and do not assume that my opinions are relevant or beneficial. By not providing my opinion, however, I might be depriving the community members of the ability to make a fully autonomous and informed choice instead of simply feeling uneasy about listening to the doctor. Speaking out might actually promote freedom of choice by making another option available and, by not doing so, I am limiting the community’s freedoms. I also deny my personal autonomy by not sharing my informed opinion with my friends and informants in the community.
I, as a researcher, receive the benefit of pleasing the community by sharing my resources and upholding my value of reciprocity. I, however, may find myself in a potentially difficult situation if I am asked to give rides in the future and this interferes with my research agenda. Withholding information about how there are alternatives to following the doctor’s orders may be seen as unjust. All people should have access to important information about their health. |
What do you think?