Get perfect grades by consistently using our writing services. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Discussion 2 Kaitlyn Zabler psy 332

Contains unread posts

Kaitlyn Zabler posted Feb 16, 2020 1:09 PM

I think it would be possible to carry out the Tearoom Trade Study in a way that meets ethical requirements. One of the biggest concerns regarding this study was that Humphreys did not obtain consent from the subjects involved, and violated their privacy by showing up at their house. This could easily be remedied by finding willing subjects who are fully informed of the risks, goals, and responsibilities of the study. As far as privacy of the subject goes, there are obviously boundaries that the researcher must respect. Another major violation of ethics guidelines was that Humphreys was aware that his subjects were engaging in illegal activity, since anal and oral sex were criminalized in some states at the time. A researcher should not encourage behavior that could harm the health of a participant, or cause legal problems. Sex culture has clearly changed over the years, especially attitudes involving homosexuals. Many men and women are unashamed of their sexual behaviors, and as a result, may be fully willing to participate in a study regarding sexual rendezvous. Since public sex is illegal in many areas, this aspect of the experiment would also need to be changed so that the participants do not risk getting into trouble.

I, personally, do not think that breaching ethical guidelines is permissible. Although some good came from Humphreys’ study, such as police shifting their focus from consenting sexual acts to non-consenting sexual therefore creating a shift in the attitude regarding homosexuals, the study had the possibility of going very wrong because of the unethical decisions. I do not think it is ever okay to risk one’s physical health, mental state, or reputation in the name of science. Participants must be explicitly aware of the risks and side-effects of studies, and I even think they must pass a psychiatric assessment to ensure they are fully aware of the danger they are putting themselves in for high-risk studies.

Lehmiller, J. (26 December 2017). The Psychology of Human Sexuality. Retrieved from

Ritchey week 2 pay 332

Contains unread posts

Ryan Ritchey posted Feb 16, 2020 3:01 AM

I do not see a possible way to do this study ethically. The breaches of privacy the participants endured were completely unethical. Humphrey’s even took down their license plates and followed them around. This was a direct violation of Principle E of the code of conduct. This principle is respect for people’s rights and dignity. If the participants gave their consent to be a part of the study, there is no way of telling if they would have acted the same. Most of these upstanding citizens they describe would not be willing to risk their other life just for research. There is also no real way to guarantee people’s health during this experiment either. Another part of the code of conduct is avoiding harm, and a modern experiment would have no way of avoiding harm to the participants. They could contract STD’s or get attacked during the process. They could also get arrested if seen by law enforcement.

Breaching ethical guidelines is a tough call. I would initially say that no there is no room for breaches, but with a little bit of research I found an article on deception in research. According to Boynton, Portnoy & Johnson (2015), “Indirect deception occurs when participants agree to postpone full disclosure of the true purpose of the research or when the goals of the study are not conveyed in their totality to the participant”. I can see why this type of breach would be used. It could potentially offer more candid responses to questions/research. However, direct deception is not acceptable. Direct deception is when researchers purposely lie about the reason for research. This is completely unacceptable and it a breach of ethical guidelines.

Boynton, M., Portnoy, D., Johnson, B. (2013). Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of deception in psychological research. IRB, 35(2), 7-13. Retrieved from:

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. (2017). Retrieved from:

Disc week 2 HGMT

Contains unread posts

Katherine Morrill posted Feb 14, 2020 12:07 AM

The Patient’s Bill of Rights adopted into law in 1998 was established to improve relationships between patients and their health care providers and to promote confidence to the patient that they will be cared for fairly. It is also intended to encourage the patients themselves to have an active role in their own health (Patients’ Bill of Rights, n.d.). One of the rights supported is the federal Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) which gives a patient the right to determine what and how medical treatment should be administered if they become incapacitated. In order to receive Medicare or Medicaid payments from the government, health care facilities and providers must comply with this law. Providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, long-term care facilities, and hospice are also obligated to provide these rights to any and all patients, not just those on Medicare and Medicaid. Advance Directives, for example, must be documented in patient charts and have policies and procedures regarding this right (Federal Law on Advanced Directives, n.d.).

UMGC. (n.d.). Federal law on advanced directives in HGMT372. Document posted in University of Maryland Global Campus HGMT 372 6980 online classroom, archived at

UMGC. (n.d.). Patient’s bill of rights in HGMT372. Document posted in University of Maryland Global Campus HGMT 372 6980 online classroom, archived at

Example 1:

This is an example of a patient’s right of decision-making about his end-of life care being taken away by his own wife. She brought him to numerous health care facilities against his wishes for medical treatment including dialysis. It was discovered that she had been removed as health advocate for her husband in documentation but had hidden those pages. The Minnesota state district court appointed an emergency guardian to act on behalf of Albert Barnes as requested by the Methodist Hospital.

Mickelsen, R. A., Bernstein, D. S., Marshall, M. F., & Miles, S. H. (2013). The Barnes case: Taking difficult futility cases public. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(1), 374–378.

Example 2:

July 2013, Sheila W., a 15-year-old female who suffered from aplastic anemia, a life-threatening but non-terminal condition refused a blood transfusion due to her family’s religious beliefs—Jehovah’s Witness. The circuit court of Wisconsin assigned an emergency temporary guardian to Sheila, she appealed. Sheila pushed for Wisconsin to consider the mature minor doctrine. This provides minors the ability to refuse or consent treatments based upon their own maturity level, intelligence, or even a verbal understanding of the treatment and consequences of a medical intervention.

Hall Render. (2013, July 11). Wisconsin supreme court declines to address the mature minor doctrine [Blog post]. Retrieved from…

Week 2 Discussion- Naima HGMT

Contains unread posts

Naima Abdulkadir posted Feb 13, 2020 11:55 PM

Patients have a bill of rights. Patients also consent to care and have a right to self-determine their care. Those who care for patients are to keep information protected.

Select one of the patient rights (ethical or legal issues) from readings this week. Discuss with your colleagues the right, the legal and/or ethical basis for this right and how this translates into responsibility for a specific health service organization setting. Provide two specific real life legal case examples that you find on the internet or in the print media. Examples: assisted living facilities for disabled, long term care facility, a home care nursing association, a small physician practice, a hospital, a rehabilitation center, or a first responder/ambulance. Remember:

1. The patient right (with proper legal citation);

2. The setting; and

3. The health care organization’s responsibility.

Informed Consent: Zinermon v. Burch- 42 U.S.C. Section:1983
“Patient rights are those basic rule of conduct between patients and medical caregivers as well as the institutions and people that support them” (Davis, C. & Shiel, W 2017). Patient’s Bill of Rights addresses an individual’s right, responsibilities and information concerning their condition and treatment options, and autonomy over their medical treatment decisions. This means that individuals have the right to choose what medical treatments they may or may not want to receive. Darrell Burch, a mentally ill person was taken to Florida State Hospital by a Good Samaritan who found him on the streets. Burch was kept in the hospital for couple of month and when release brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the District Court against the physicians, hospital administrators, staff members, and others, for an alleged violation of his due process rights. He alleged that “they violated state law by admitting him as a voluntary patient when they knew or should have known that he was incompetent to give informed consent to his admission”. Informed consent requires the patient to have understood the diagnosis, risks and possible treatment options, which can be explained in broad terms. “A patient must be competent in order to give voluntary and informed consent. Thus, competent consent involves the ability to make and stand by an informed, freely made decision” (Davis, C. & Shiel, W 2017). Another real life case involved elderly abuse. Colonial Healthcare, a Horizon West nursing home, located in Auburn, California was found guilty by a Sacramento County jury of elder abuse in the death of a patient. The patient named Frances Tanner died from an infected bedsore after breaking her hip in a fall. “Ms. Tanner experienced numerous unwitnessed falls and after the last fall she was placed in bed” (Herman, C. 2010).

Davis, C. & Shiel, W (2017). Patient Rights. Retrieved from

Justia: US Supreme Court. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990)…

Herman, C. (2010). PATIENT RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED. FATE: Newsletter of Foundation Aiding the Elderly

The other 2 I will post later in 3 hours ( Same thread)

Got stuck with another paper? We can help! Use our paper writing service to score better grades and meet your deadlines.

Get 15% discount for your first order

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper