© 2005 CMA Media Inc. or its licensors Letters
populations The recent publication of 2 epi-demiologic studies examining Aboriginal populations1,2 raises ethical concerns. Neither study describes any consultations with First Nations or Métis community members in the for-mulation of the research questions, de-velopment of the research protocols, i...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2005
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.551.803 http://www.cmaj.ca/content/172/8/977.1.full.pdf |
| Summary: | populations The recent publication of 2 epi-demiologic studies examining Aboriginal populations1,2 raises ethical concerns. Neither study describes any consultations with First Nations or Métis community members in the for-mulation of the research questions, de-velopment of the research protocols, in-terpretation of the data or dissemination of the results. This apparent lack of consultation is particularly problematic given that both studies could have pol-icy implications that would affect First Nations and Métis individuals and com-munities. A related ethical and method-ologic concern is raised by the use of “Aboriginality ” as a risk factor in the multivariate analyses of both studies. As a health research scientist trained in the Western academic disciplines of med-icine and public health and as a Métis woman, I respect the efforts of these authors to produce much-needed infor-mation on the health of First Nations and Métis peoples. However, I have come to understand that it is only through an approach of mutual understanding, respect and partnership that academic research will be able to contribute to im-proving the health outcomes in First Na-tions, Métis and Inuit communities.3–8 “Aboriginality ” is a social construct with little grounding in the day-to-day realities of the heterogeneous groups to which it refers. Tremendous cultural, historical, socioeconomic and political diversity exists between and within these groups. What is shared is the ex-perience of colonization and the resul-tant legacy of poverty and social stres-sors. Use of this pan-ethnic term as one of several “risk ” variables, while per-haps necessary to achieve adequate study power, devalues the unique expe- |
|---|