Response to open peer commentaries on "Returning to History : The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia"

Deborah Zion; Linda Briskman; Bebe Loff

doi:10.1080/15265160903547511

Response to open peer commentaries on "Returning to History : The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia"

Deborah Zion
, Linda Briskman
, Bebe Loff

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Many commentators on our article "Returning to History: The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia" (2010) have suggested that the exclusion of direct asylum seeker participation further exacerbates the silencing and invisibility of these vulnerable people. This criticism raises important issues"”namely, how can we claim to speak for others? When should we attempt to do so? What is an acceptable level of risk to participants in research, against what should these risks be balanced, and whose right ought it be to make the judgment?

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	W6-W7
Number of pages	2
Journal	American Journal of Bioethics
Volume	10
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160903547511
Publication status	Published - 2010

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities

Keywords

Australia
asylum seekers
conflict (psychology)
mandatory detention
patient advocacy
research

Access to Document

10.1080/15265160903547511

Cite this

@article{d48dcf133bbe4f558ef6bf7e95386041,

title = "Response to open peer commentaries on {"}Returning to History : The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia{"}",

abstract = "Many commentators on our article {"}Returning to History: The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia{"} (2010) have suggested that the exclusion of direct asylum seeker participation further exacerbates the silencing and invisibility of these vulnerable people. This criticism raises important issues{"}”namely, how can we claim to speak for others? When should we attempt to do so? What is an acceptable level of risk to participants in research, against what should these risks be balanced, and whose right ought it be to make the judgment?",

keywords = "Australia, asylum seekers, conflict (psychology), mandatory detention, patient advocacy, research",

author = "Deborah Zion and Linda Briskman and Bebe Loff",

year = "2010",

doi = "10.1080/15265160903547511",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

pages = "W6--W7",

journal = "American Journal of Bioethics",

issn = "1526-5161",

publisher = "Taylor \& Francis",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to open peer commentaries on "Returning to History : The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia"

AU - Zion, Deborah

AU - Briskman, Linda

AU - Loff, Bebe

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Many commentators on our article "Returning to History: The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia" (2010) have suggested that the exclusion of direct asylum seeker participation further exacerbates the silencing and invisibility of these vulnerable people. This criticism raises important issues"”namely, how can we claim to speak for others? When should we attempt to do so? What is an acceptable level of risk to participants in research, against what should these risks be balanced, and whose right ought it be to make the judgment?

AB - Many commentators on our article "Returning to History: The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia" (2010) have suggested that the exclusion of direct asylum seeker participation further exacerbates the silencing and invisibility of these vulnerable people. This criticism raises important issues"”namely, how can we claim to speak for others? When should we attempt to do so? What is an acceptable level of risk to participants in research, against what should these risks be balanced, and whose right ought it be to make the judgment?

KW - Australia

KW - asylum seekers

KW - conflict (psychology)

KW - mandatory detention

KW - patient advocacy

KW - research

UR - http://handle.westernsydney.edu.au:8081/1959.7/uws:40236

U2 - 10.1080/15265160903547511

DO - 10.1080/15265160903547511

M3 - Article

C2 - 20131161

SN - 1526-5161

VL - 10

SP - W6-W7

JO - American Journal of Bioethics

JF - American Journal of Bioethics

IS - 2

ER -

Response to open peer commentaries on "Returning to History : The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia"

Abstract

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this