The study is submitted to an international foundation, which agrees to fund it. After its approval by the state review committee, the study is presented to the funder’s research ethics committee. All but one member of the committee, who is an anthropologist who has worked extensively in the rural parts of that country, approve the study. The anthropologist is concerned that the confidentiality of abortion-seekers could be compromised, and wants assurances that the records that identify each research participant will be kept confidential. The leader of the research group responds that all records will be kept under lock and key in the main offices of the NGO, which is nowhere near the study site.
Questions
1 Does the process for identification of women who have had an abortion by using community and women’s groups and formal and informal health workers as information sources properly ensure confidentiality?
2 Should oral consent substitute for written consent in a population in which illiteracy is common and people are reluctant to put any signature or identifying mark on a written document that they might not understand?
3 Will the interview process adequately protect privacy? Comment on the procedures that are designed to protect the women who had consented to be interviewed at the time they underwent an abortion (dummy interviews in the community, clustering of interviews, and dummy interviews with other family members during the interview with the woman).
4 What additional measures might be used to protect interviewees from the possibility of unwanted attention?
5 Is this method of recruitment of”abortion seekers” appropriate and free of coercion?
150 THE CASE STUDIES Privacy and Confidentiality
CASEBOOK ON ETHICAL ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH
