It is important to note that the core ethical principles of the Belmont Report clearly outline three core elements. In accordance with the report, these include respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (Office for Human Research Protections, 1979). The case study presents a situation where the researcher, Dr. Jones, failed to comply with the ethical principles by justifying such measure with risk-benefit assessment in favor of children. It is evident that all three principles have not adhered to some degree or extent.
Firstly, Dr. Jones failed to comply with the principle of respect for all persons. The report states that the given principle is rooted in “the requirement to acknowledge autonomy and the requirement to protect those with diminished autonomy” (Office for Human Research Protections, 1979, para. 12). In other words, since the subjects of the research were drug abusers, they could fall into both categories. By not informing the parents about the primary purpose of the research, Dr. Jones exhibited disrespect for all persons, which include drug abusers and child abusers as well. Parents are autonomous agents who must be informed about the research in which they are deciding to participate. A similar case can be observed in the Milgram study, which also involved deception and non-provision of the research objectives. The main reason is that subjects were led to believe they were to administer shocks for fake test subjects, and they were the primary research interest in order to observe the impact of authority on obedience (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2018). In both cases, there is a sense of deception and untruthfulness in regards to research participants.
Secondly, Dr. Jones evidently failed to comply with the ethical principle of beneficence. One can see how the researcher justified the beneficence of the research since it could have led to fewer children being abused. However, the report states that there are “two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions in this sense: (1) do not harm and (2) maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms” (Office for Human Research Protections, 1979, para. 17). In other words, the harms of the research were present, where a parent could become a subject for more research projects. In addition, in the most desirable outcome, child abuse cases would only stop among drug-abusing parents, but child abuse is not solely practiced by drug abusers. The problem is a complex one, which should not be addressed with simplistic solutions.
Thirdly, Dr. Jones failed to adhere to the principle of justice and fairness. The report states that the formulations of justice include “(1) to each person an equal share, (2) to each person according to individual need, (3) to each person according to individual effort, (4) to each person according to societal contribution, and (5) to each person according to merit” (Office for Human Research Protections, 1979, para. 21). The researcher did not ensure the presence of justice by not properly informing the parents on the primary purpose of the research. All other research projects involving human subjects provide clear and succinct information to the participants, but the researcher decided that the subjects of the given study were not entitled to such transparency. Therefore, it was unjust of Dr. Jones to conduct such research, and no risk-benefit assessment can provide sufficient justification for it.
In conclusion, one should be aware of three fundamental principles of ethics. The latter includes respect for all persons, beneficence, and justice. Dr. Jones primarily failed to comply with the former two, but the last one was also dismissed to a certain extent.