In-Depth Ethical Critique: Tap Water Wound Treatment Research

This essay presents a critical ethical analysis of a research study focused on wound treatment, specifically addressing the use of tap water. The analysis examines whether informed consent was appropriately obtained from the 27 participants who agreed to participate out of an initial pool of 71 assessed for eligibility. It questions the extent to which the study procedures and potential risks, such as increased infection rates from using tap water, were explained to the participants. The critique also considers the vulnerability of adult participants with comorbidities and evaluates the study's adherence to ethical standards, noting the approval by the Human Subjects Committee of the Hong Kong Polytechnic Institute and the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Kowloon West Cluster of the Hospital Authority. While the study demonstrates ethical strengths through its code of ethics and adherence to norms, a weakness is identified in its inability to secure consent from a larger participant group.

Ethics Critique
Student Name: Student ID:
Unit Name: Unit ID:
Date Due: Professor Name:
1 | P a g e

1. Was informed consent obtained? How?
Before conducting the study, subjects who could contribute significantly to the study was
identified. There were a total of 71 subjects assessed for eligibility, amongst whom 30 of
them were excluded (Israel, 2014). When 41 subjects were asked for consent only 27
responded and signed consent for the study. Only subjects that signed consent form was
taken for the purpose of the research.
2. Who explained the study to participants? How did they explain it?
The scholar explained procedures and details regarding the study to participants. It is the duty
of the scholar to inform regarding collection of statistical data from the patients (Johnson,
2014). The scholar orally informed that sample data that he would collect from patients to
reflect regarding wounds treatment and usage of tap water.
3. How did the researchers protect participants’ privacy and confidentiality?
The scholar collected data from participants and analysed the to attain results. However,
while collection or analysing of such data he did not disclose names or other personal details
of the patients (Dove, 2014). This was done specially to protect privacy and confidentiality
rights of participants.
4. Were the potential risks and benefits of the study discussed with participants?
When? How? What do you think are the risk and benefits of the study?
The potential risks and benefits of the study was not discussed with the participants.
The risks of the study are increased risks of infection arising from wounds healing by
usage of tap water (Loewen, 2014). Participants were randomly subjected to using tap
water and distilled water for healing wounds. Those participants that were treated with
2 | P a g e

tap water could easily have increased risks from infections. Benefits of the study could be
to the greater population in Asian countries who uses varied methods for treating wounds.
5. Do you think the participants were vulnerable (e.g., children or adults who are not
physically or mentally competent to participate in the study)? what made them
vulnerable?
Adult population who were selected for the study were vulnerable as some of them faced
comorbidities. Further treating their wounds with use of tap water made they vulnerable
to an increased rate of infection. Children were not participants in the study, hence they
were not subjected any types of vulnerability.
6. Did a Research Ethics Board or Ethics Review Committee approve the study? how
was this done?
Research Ethics Board and Ethics Review Committee was not approached to approve the
study as it adhered to all possible norms and rules for ethics. The study procedures were
reviewed and approved by the Human Subjects Committee of the Hong Kong
Polytechnic Institute, and the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Kowloon West
Cluster of the Hospital Authority.
A written application was submitted to the board for their approval. The participants
consent form was also provided for approving the study.
Article’s ethical strength and weaknesses:
The article’s ethical strengths are that it adheres to all possible ethical standards of research and
it includes a code of ethics.
Weakness of the article is that it has not been able to gather consent from greater participants for
the study.
3 | P a g e

Reference Lists
Dove, E. S. (2014). Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research. Journal of
Law and the Biosciences, 1(1), 3-51.
Israel, M. (2014). Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: Beyond regulatory
compliance. Sage.
Johnson, B. (2014). Ethical issues in shadowing research. Qualitative Research in Organizations
and Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 21-40.
Loewen, P. (2014). Ethical issues in pharmacy practice research: an introductory guide. The
Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 133.
4 | P a g e