Conflicting Obligations Considering the Downstream Effects of Human Subjects Research Protections

Main Article Content

Amy R. Reed


This article considers the problem of conflicting researcher obligations in RHM, particularly when professional medical rhetoric is analyzed with the goal of improving patient care. Taking one case as illustrative, this article argues that medical professional participants are in positions of relative power, and that their choice to participate in RHM research or not can have downstream effects on more vulnerable patients. Furthermore, this case demonstrates that the interests of medical professional participants may diverge from the interests of their patients. As a result, when RHM researchers assume traditional orientations towards medical professional research participants, they may find themselves unable to advocate for more vulnerable patient populations.

Article Details

Special Section on Ethics
Author Biography

Amy R. Reed, Rowan University

Amy Reed is an Associate Professor in the Department of Writing Arts at Rowan University.


Works Cited

Emmons, Kimberly. (2008). “All on the list”: uptake in talk about depression. In Rhetoric of
Healthcare: Essays Toward a New Disciplinary Inquiry. Cresskill: Hampton Press. p. -180.

Gogan, Brian, Ashley Patriarca, and Amy R. Reed. (2019, March). Conflicting obligations:
Negotiating accountability in technical communication. Panel presented at the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing conference, Pittsburgh, PA.

Hodgson, Jan, & Weil, Jon. (2012). Commentary: How individual and profession-level factors
influence discussion of disability in prenatal genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(1), 24–26.

King, Ron H. (2017). Should patients be allowed to record doctors? Medpage Today. Retrieved
August 29, 2019, from

Lippman, Abby. (1991). Prenatal genetic testing and screening: Constructing needs and
reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 17(1–2), 15–50.

Newkirk, Thomas (1996). “Seduction and Betrayal in Qualitative Research.” Ethics and
Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy. Ed Peter Mortenson and Gesa E. Kirsch. NCTE: Urbana, IL. (3-16).

Parens, Eric, & Asch, Adrienne. (2000). Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights. Georgetown
University Press.

Reed, Amy R. (2018). Building on Bibliography: Toward Useful Categorization of Research in
Rhetorics of Health and Medicine. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 48(2), 175–198.

Ross, Casey. (2018). Patients are taking home recordings of doctor visits. Who else could listen?
Retrieved August 29, 2019, from

Segal, Judy, Paré, Anthony, Brent, Doug, & Vipond, Douglas. (1998). The Researcher as
Missionary: Problems with Rhetoric and Reform in the Disciplines. College Composition and Communication, 50(1), 71–90.

Skotko, B. (2005). Prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome: Mothers who continued their
pregnancies evaluate their health care providers. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology,192: 670-77.

Thomas, G. M., & Rothman, B. K. (2016). Keeping the Backdoor to Eugenics Ajar?: Disability
and the Future of Prenatal Screening. AMA Journal of Ethics, 18(4), 406–415.

Walton, Rebecca, Kristen R. Moore, and Natasha N. Jones. (2019). Technical communication
after the social justice turn: building coalitions for action. New York: Routledge.