Ethical Tensions Resulting from Interpreter Involvement in the Consent Process

Ethical Tensions Resulting from Interpreter Involvement in the Consent Process
Amelia Barwise, Richard Sharp, and Jessica Hirsch
Ethics & Human Research, July 2019; 41(4) pp 31-35
Open Access
Abstract
We describe how our institution responded when an interpreter who participated in the consent process involving an individual with limited English proficiency refused to cosign consent documents attesting that the individual enrolling in the study understood the consent information and that her consent to enroll was voluntary. In developing our approach, our institution took into account ethical tensions between the Belmont principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice that apply to the protection of research participants and the professional principles of beneficence, fidelity, and respect for the importance of culture that are outlined in ethical guidelines for medical interpreters.

Editor’s note: The Belmont principles referred to above can be found in the Belmont Report here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s