Biases in Research
Researchers often feel pressure to produce results in scientific studies. Pressure is delivered by any entity, but this perception of pushing to produce, is solely controlled within the mind of the researcher. In order to have valid and reliable research, scientists are taught to be diligent, thorough, and self-aware enough to control for various biases. However, more often than not, there is no escaping one’s own mind or the resulting beliefs that reside within. Doctors, scholars, and students are posed to look toward the future by making their mark on the scientific community. Cessation of this drive can be accomplished by publication in a journal, magazine, or a book using intentional or unintentional methods of subjective data collection and reporting controlled by biases. As referenced from Cook (1991) by Thomas and Hersen (2011), objective data is to be delivered by all researchers and must always be without biases of any kind. Recently, many scientific studies have come under great scrutiny and succumbed to the righteousness of falsification by lack of replication and subsequent discovery of experimenter bias.
Belief and expectation of a positive outcome of a hypothesis by a researcher, which affects the results of an
…show more content…
When researchers allow biases to control actions in experiments over objective protocols the scientific community suffers the loss. Regardless of opinion, experience, or knowledge, empiricism must be the driving factor in research. Otherwise, the science will become tainted even when there is no inappropriate intent behind the process. There is no place for biases in any scientific genre and must be controlled by way of critical analyses and accountability. Therefore, when research has been evaluated, the results are replicated and empirically acknowledged as reliable and
Diane: A Case of Physician Assisted Suicide. Diane was a patient of Dr. Timothy Quill, who was diagnosed with acute myelomonocytic leukemia. Diane overcame alcoholism and had vaginal cancer in her youth. She had been under his care for a period of 8 years, during which an intimate doctor-patient bond had been established.
The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it struggles with the issue of life and death. If you take a moment and imagine how you would choose to live your last day, it is almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a day spent lying in a hospital bed, suffering in pain, continuously being pumped with medicine, and living in a strangers’ body. Today we live in a culture that denies the terminally ill the right to maintain control over when and how to end their lives. Physicians-assisted suicide “is the voluntary termination of one's own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide, 2017). Physician-assisted
In the final step of evaluating conclusions, the research community makes an active conversation about what they have discovered, and they write down details about the study. Then, they publish their work in various types of journal in order to let others read and learn from them. In the Katrevich et al. (2014) study, the conclusions were published in North American Journal of Psychology. In this way, scientists can figure out a new idea to be tested or one that will change the thinking about some topics (King, 2016).
Controversy around physician assisted suicide partially comes from the lack of knowledge surrounding it. Euthanasia, also known as voluntary active euthanasia is where the physician intentionally ends the patient’s life at the patient’s request and with their full informed consent (Emanuel, 2015). Nowhere in the United States is this legal. Passive euthanasia is when life-sustaining treatments are terminated such as respirators and artificial nutrition (Emanuel, 2015). Palliative sedation is considered ethical and involves administering drugs that pose a risk of death (Emanuel, 2015). There are numerous terms used to describe death and physician’s involvement so it is important to distinguish between the different terms to better educate patients.
In this article, Dr. Braddock and Dr. Tonelli explain the difference between physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is “Practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life” (Braddock and Tonelli). The authors then describes that euthanasia is when the physician administers the lethal medication. They write this article with the intent to inform the public about this highly controversial subject. The Dr.’s explain the positive side in assisted suicide as, “Physician aid-in-dying is ethically justifiable” (Braddock and Tonelli). They write that people who are for assisted death are about respect, justice, compassion, individual liberty, and honesty for the sick and dying . The authors then explain that, on the other hand, “Physician assisted suicide is ethically impermissible” (Braddock and Tonelli). They give examples, that could have a negative impact on society, such as, religion, potential for abuse, false diagnosis or prognosis, and how it could been seen as a contradiction to the Hippocratic oath.
In 2007, the American Geriatrics Society defined Physician-Assisted Suicide as, “When a physician provides either equipment or medication, or informs the patient of the most efficacious use of already available means, for the purpose of assisting the patient to end his or her own life” (qtd. in Lachman 121). Physician-Assisted Suicide is what it says, suicide. In the United States the controversy of the “Right to die” is not new. According to Vicki D. Lachman a Clinical Associate Professor, after the Supreme Court decision in 1997, it was determined that there is not a constitutional right to die. The Supreme Court is allowing states to pass laws to legalize Physician-Assisted Suicide. Since then three states, Oregon, Washington, and Montana have made it legal to perform Phy...
Although the scientific use of anthropometrics in not abused in modern day society, scientists still incorrectly draw conclusions from data and statistics. Many statically fallacies occur where scientists will try and bend the statistics to prove their own personal opinion. For example, a scientist may deem his new invention or product to be 100% successful, but it could have only been tested 5 times. Even though the abuse of anthropometrics has been abandoned, scientific data abuse is still apparent in modern day
Should physicians be able to assist patients who are terminally ill end their lives? Physician assisted suicide is a very controversial subject. In today’s society, people who commit suicide are known as “insane,” a person who takes prescription pills is known as a “drug addict” or “criminal.” However, when a doctor honors a patient’s request for a lethal dose of medicine, (which the patient will inject themselves) to end their life in peace is considered to be a murderer. However, when a physician unplugs a terminally ill patient who is on life support at the patient’s request is just doing their job. However, a person whose quality of life is nonexistent and are faced with a terminal illness should have the right to decide to seek physicians assistance.
In the past couple of years, the debate regarding physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia has become a major ethical issue in medical practice as well as an issue that involves the law and public policy. By definition, physician-assisted suicide is when a physician provides the necessary means (equipment or medication), or informs the patient of the most efficacious use of already available means, for the purpose of assisting the patient in ending his or her life.1-2 Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, in a relatively painless method.3 It is important to note that with PAS, the physician does not directly administer the medication to end life, instead they provide the medication and the patient performs the act themselves while in euthanasia another individual administers the medication regardless of patient consent or awareness.
To address these fears, many people attempt to control when and how they end their lives. Naturally, they turn to their physicians for assistance because the physicians know what amounts of drugs are lethal and how to administer such drugs to ensure death and prevent pain. However, in recent decades, when a patient feels that his or her life is no longer worth living for, they will commonly ask for their physicians’ assistance in suicide. Many people feel that it is the physician’s moral responsibility to end the suffering of the patient, while others feel that it is unethical to interfere with a natural process of death. Physicians exist to save the lives of patients. Assisted suicide puts them in the position of ending lives and naturally creates arguments of ethicality and legality.
“Scientists Not Immune from Gender Bias, Yale Study Shows.” Yale News. Yale University, 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.
Sampling bias (pg. 112) – a sampling method can be called biased if the results of the research found favors the outcome the researcher is looking for. The researcher ultimately controls/influences whether the results are biased and potentially misleading. If a researcher thinks that football players are more susceptible to concussions, the researcher may only look at specific positions where the players take more hits to the head for their research which could affect the results looking at football players as a whole.
Researchers work hard to eliminate bias from outcomes through approaches that diminish subjectivity and modification from unknown sources. Randomization, use of well-matched controls, and blinding of analysts and researchers are some ways to try to a...
However on the other hand, for all advantages; there are disadvantages. In some instances when people utilize and manipulate data, they may knowingly falsify data so that it may adhere to ones beliefs or theories. In addition there are people who may deliberately tamper with information as well. When collecting information, there must be neutrality when assessing and collecting data. In addition, professional competence and integrity must be superior and finally, all research subjects or respondents must be safeguarded from potential harm and sabotage.
Often, scientists are tasked with the role of providing evidence to support theories or to predict future outcomes based on scientific research. This methods or research are usually accepted in natural sciences like chemistry and physics. This is because unlike social science, they usually use formulas, well laid out structures and methods (Guttin, 2012). However, when it comes to social science, researchers usually work using theories by formulating hypothesis, and researching to prove or disapprove the theories. When doing this, social science researchers usually become advocates in certain circumstances. This paper highlights some of the pros and cons of scientists becoming advocates, and gives examples of when social scientists become advocates and situations where they observe objectivity.