Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

When evaluation studies are conducted in a sensitive area, ethical and legal implications are bound to challenge evaluators. All too often, evaluators must deal with competing responsibilities in evaluating these programs or services. This article focuses on several ethical and legal issues that arose during an evaluation of abortion services. We discuss how we developed decision rules and considered trade-offs in dealing with these ethical and legal issues so that rational and objective decisions could be reached. We place this discussion within the context of balancing the utility and propriety evaluation standards with respect to obtaining true informed consent and protecting the privacy and confidentiality of data when evaluating abortion services. The article concludes with recommendations concerning the evaluation of abortion services.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bill C-43, An Act Respecting Abortion, 2nd Sess., 38th Parliament, 1989: SS 287 (1).

Chelimsky, E. (1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. The American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 21-34.

Datta, L. (2000). Seriously seeking fairness: Strategies for crafting a non-partisan evaluation in a partisan world. American Journal of Evaluation, 21 (1), 1-14.

Ferris, L. E. , & McMain-Klein, M. (1995). Small-area variations in utilization of abortion services in Ontario from 1985 to 1992. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 152 (11), 1801-1807.

Ferris, L. E. , McMain-Klein, M. , Colodny, N. , Fellows, G. F. , & Lamont, J. (1996). Factors associated with immediate abortion complications. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 154 (11), 1677-1685.

Ferris, L. E. , McMain-Klein, M. , & Iron, K. (1997). A descriptive report on the availability of abortion services in Ontario general hospitals. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Ontario. Technical Report No. 08-01 TR (January).

Ferris, L. E. , McMain-Klein, M. , & Iron, K. (1998). Factors influencing the delivery of abortion services in Ontario: A descriptive study. Family Planning Perspectives, 30 (3), 134-238.

Freund, P. A. (Ed.). (1969). Experimentation with human subjects. New York: George Braziller.

Holder, A. R. (1985). When researchers are served subpoenas . IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 7, 5-7.

10.

Huston, P. , & Naylor, C. D. (1996). Health services research: Reporting on studies using secondary data sources. Editorial. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 155, 1697-1702.

11.

Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation . The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.

12.

Kelman, H. C. (1997). Privacy and research with human beings. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 169-195.

13.

Morgentaler, H., Smoling, S. R. v. the Queen. (1988). 44 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (S.C.C.). Ruling 1988.

14.

Powell, M. (1987). Report on therapeutic abortion services in Ontario. Study commissioned by the Ministry of Health.

15.

Task Group of Abortion Service Providers . (1992). Report on access to abortion services in Ontario. Toronto, Canada.

16.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . (1999). Regulations, Section 46.111a. Washington, DC.

Legal and Ethical Issues in Evaluating Abortion Services

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References