Search results

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven universities to deliver education online, making use of digital platforms for both formal and informal learning. This move has accelerated concerns regarding institutions’ capabilities to protect students from online abuse and support those who fall victim to its many forms. Empirical data drawn from UK universities prior to the pandemic highlight the lack of policy and practice across the university sector around both awareness of, and support from, online abuse among the student body. Further concerns during the pandemic, which highlight failures not just of safeguarding policy, but cybersecurity practice, demonstrate the need for universities to not only recognise their duty of care regarding student welfare but also to provide training and education for all, making use of online and hybrid higher education.

Abuse and misuse of Substitute Decision-Making (SDMg) authority impacts the lives of children and adults with decision-making disabilities. The concerns raised in this paper amplify previous attention addressed by advocacy agencies and law reformists such as the Law Commission of Ontario. I analyse problems associated with Plenary Guardianship from both the lived experience of the non-guardian perspective and from the authority bestowed to the Guardian pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 of Western Australia legitimating the unintended capacity to abuse one’s substitute decision-making authority. Substitute decision-making arrangements enable decisions to be made on behalf of a person with a decision-making disability; usually made when such arrangements are necessary and subject to safeguards. Detrimentally, the substitute decision-maker (SDM) can assert broader powers beyond sensible measures that include thwarting investigations undertaken by family members; removing family members from the life of the person for whom an order is made; inappropriately applying a paternalistic or ‘best interest’ approach to decision-making where other approaches are required; failing to consider the individual’s wishes or making decisions contrary to those wishes; having insufficient contact with the individual; and, sharing insufficient or incorrect information. Moreover, they may subject the individual for whom an SDM order is made to experimental medical treatment in tandem with imposing or condoning severe and harmful restrictive-practices. Consequently, the second issue addressed in this paper concerns normalising both chemical and physical restrictive-practices that are both morally abhorrent and clinically highly questionable. Furthermore, often undertaken by service providers and their contracted psychiatrists and treating teams, endorsed under authority of a collaborating Guardian or SDM.

This chapter aims to provide an overview of the ethical framework and decision-making in clinical dementia research, and to analyze and discuss the ethical challenges and issues that can arise when conducting clinical dementia research.

Informed consent is the most scrutinized and controversial aspect of clinical research ethics. In clinical dementia research, assessing decision-making capacity may be challenging as the nature and progress of each disease influences decision-making capacity in diverse ways. Persons with dementia represent a vulnerable population deserving special attention when developing, implementing, and evaluating the informed consent process. In this chapter, particular attention will be given to vulnerability categories and how these influence decision-making capacity. Ethical frameworks with a pragmatic contour and implication are needed to protect vulnerable patients from potential harms and ensure their optimal participation in clinical dementia research.

In addition, this chapter analyses important ethical challenges and issues in clinical dementia research. If handled thoughtfully, they would not pose insuperable barriers to research. But if they are ignored, they could slow the research process, alienate potential study subjects and cause harm to research participants. Ethical considerations in research involving persons with dementia primarily concern the representation of the interests of the participants with dementia and protection of their vulnerabilities and rights.

A core set of ethical questions and recommendations are drawn to aid researchers, institutional review boards and potential research participants in the process of participating in clinical dementia research.

This chapter centers on practices of Review Ethics Board (REBs) as they may impact academic freedom for faculty members acting as participants in research. A case example is provided, which highlights the authors’ experience applying for ethics clearance to conduct a qualitative research study. While the study was classified as minimal risk and received ethics clearance from the researchers’ host institution, additional research ethics applications were required from the higher education settings identified, before being able to recruit participants. In addition to pressing timelines, extra workload and the coordination of different requirements for each institution, not all REBs permitted faculty members the option to reveal their identity and their beliefs on pedagogical practices. This particular experience with the ethics review process elicited questions centering on research ethics committees’ practices in terms of (a) providing opportunities for faculty members, as participants in research, to freely share information about their beliefs and teaching practices as well as (b) infringing on faculty members’ autonomy and rights to intellectually express, share and take ownership of their personal beliefs and pedagogical approaches to teaching in higher education.

A statutory board is one of the three forms of public enterprise in Singapore which are involved directly or indirectly in economic development. Tan Chwee Huat has defined a statutory board as “an autonomous government agency set up by special legislation to perform specific functions (Tan, 1974, p. 102).” Similarly, Lee Boon Hiok has referred to statutory boards as “a catchall phrase for the statutory bodies which have been established by an Act of Parliament,” which specifies their rationale as well as their rights and powers (Lee, 1975, pp. 38–39).

This paper sets a case study of missing children in the Republic of Ireland against a review of international research to explore broader understandings and responses to the problem.

The study begins by reviewing the literature on pioneering American initiatives dating back to the 1970s and more recent literature from Great Britain where a series of high-profile scandals involving sexual exploitation of teenage girls provoked a number of controversial inquiries into the police and social work professions. The present study was prompted by an evaluation of the 116 000 Missing Children Hotline which was introduced to Ireland in 2012 under the auspices of the European Union (EU) Daphne III Programme by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC).

The central conclusion emerging from analysis of the evidence is that Missing Children Hotlines remain rooted in representations of ‘stranger danger’ and disconnected from repeat runaway children who feature prominently in police reports from formal care settings or family homes and who are actively targeted by sexual predators and criminal gangs. The implications are that systemic change requires grounding in research strategies which combine police data with anthropological studies to give legitimacy to the voices of runway and sexually exploited children.

The study offers original international perspectives on missing children to epistemological research communities in the fields of social work, criminology and policing with recommendations that Missing Children and Runaway Safe-lines are targeted systemically at keeping runaway children, homeless children and at-risk-youth safe and off the streets.