Neonatal Pain Relief and DoH, Article Critique Example

Purpose

The purpose of the research is to demonstrate how certain studies of neonatal pain as a result of circumcision have not met the Helsinki Declaration ethical standards.
Main Points or Supporting Evidence

1. Subjects were exploited because some trials were deliberately designed to exaggerate the effectiveness of the therapies.
2. Placebo subjects suffered for no good reason.
3. Infants cannot agree based on informed consent.
4. Infants are part of a vulnerable population.
5. New therapies were not compared to the best existing therapies.
6. The existing scientific knowledge was not thoroughly understood.
7. Risks outweighed benefits.
8. The overall benefit was not good enough to warrant the research protocol.
9. Findings were not sufficiently reported.
10. The ethics were not sufficiently discussed.

Credibility of the Author and Source

Other than being published in a recognized peer-reviewed journal periodical, the authors demonstrate no known obvious creditability.
Author’s Conclusion

Much of the neonatal pain relief research does not follow minimum ethical standards.
Limitations of the Paper

The research only focused on neonatal pain relief studies, but many of the considerations are probably violated in a many studies of patients within other demographic groups.

Critical analysis

Where or how does the article fit into the literature?

It exposes some of the ways in which researchers and companies manipulate good science for personal or financial gain.

What is the contribution to the literature?

It is a noteworthy because it explores how researchers sometimes weasel out of ethical considerations.

How you may use it in the future?

I will be aware of two main points.

1. Researchers are not always cognizant of the suffering they cause subjects.
2. IRBs and publishers share some of the blame because they accept the protocols.