Jung G, Pravesh2019-09-252019-09-252012-03-212012-010975-5691http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/184247"I argue that these concerns should be viewed not merely with alarm but also with a sense of urgency for a demand for some ethical imperativeness. The study, I argue, either misreads or downplays the role and significance of certain principles which I posit are fundamental to the framework of medical ethics (the justification for considering these principles fundamental demands a separate essay) The concerns that I raise here are based on two characteristics of the study in question: First, though such studies are labelled ‘observational studies’ as opposed to controlled experiments, they are not mere armchair introspective observations of one’s thoughts. They are carried out in a social space, where the object being observed is an ‘other’, rather than the ‘self’ that is doing the observation. (The researcher-subject dichotomy can be seen as an instance of the self-other dichotomy.) Second, the legitimacy of such a study is derived from the ‘end’ or the projected result that the study aims to attain. That is to say that the study is not self-justificatory. These two characteristics respectively form the basis for two pivotal demands of medical ethics -- informed consent and ethical justification for research. These twin demands constitute the major challenges pertaining to the ethicality of a research. The paper will briefly deal with these twin demands in light of the study in question."(pg 59)engWith permission of the license/copyright holdermedical ethicsinformed consentethical justificationresearch ethicsMethods of ethicsBioethicsSocial ethicsSexual orientation/genderMedical ethicsHealth ethicsArticle