Treatment review occurs only when treatment is new, controversial or bordering on the experimental. Ethics and credential committees perform such reviews.
Other licensing or regulatory bodies that require adherence to similar guidelines govern organizations not receiving funds from the Canadian or American federal governments. Individual researchers who do not receive government funding and who do not belong to an organization are not required to adhere to such regulations. However, adherence to the guidelines is recommended for good practice, research and citizenship and to avoid legal liability. When organizations or groups without ethical review boards propose research, a university, hospital, licensing or professional organization, or another institution does reviews. Psychologists performing research or working within provincial or state agencies may need to follow additional guidelines.
Individual researchers and practitioners are required to follow consent guidelines in lock step. Thus, consent information is usually given through a typed document with a set order of information. Unfortunately, these documents are often long and complex and require a college education in order to be understood by the participant. In addition, the order in which information is presented can make comprehension difficult for the participant. The complexity of informed consent documents prompts many to return to old complaints about the intrusion of ethics review bodies into research or treatment and the impracticality of consent.
In order to improve the consent process, empirical studies of the efficiency and value of current methods are necessary. Instead of spawning such research, complaints have led to a lessening of consent requirements.
For example, an exempt-from-ethics-review status for research designated as no risk has been introduced other jurisdictions simply maintain existing general guidelines. Coal of Consent
The cause for this requirement of accomplishment comprise: a partial view of consent, bewilderment over what constitutes "informing," the techniques of achieving consent, the lack of a comprehensive theoretical base for consent, and reluctance by researchers.
The imaginary view that individuals have the right to make assessment for themselves forms the root for well-versed consent. Nevertheless, this philosophy was included into consent guidelines only after frequent subject and patient mistreatment. Changes in consent processes have often been reason by political view rather than empirical study of informed consent. As a result, many researchers and practitioners view consent as a necessary burden rather than a useful adjunct to good research or practice. At the same time, current consent methods are perceived as optimal, even in the face of contrary evidence.
Just as past guidelines, new requirements for ensuring scientific integrity have been established without empirical study. While some rules have been