# data[].attributes.headline
"prisoners" experienced pain, humiliation, hopelessness, and fear

# data[].attributes.subject
"prisoners" experienced pain, humiliation, hopelessness, and fear

# data[].attributes.body
Doody, O., & Noonan, M. (2016). Nursing research ethics, guidance and application in practice. British Journal of Nursing, 25(14), 803-807.

Grove, S. K., Burns, N., & Gray, J. R. (2013). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis and generation of evidence (7th ed.) St. Louis: Saunders/Elsevier.

Zimbardo, P. G., Maslach, C., & Haney, C. (2000). Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, transformations, consequences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Obedience to authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram paradigm (pp. 193-237). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

# data[].attributes.body
The absent elements includes: introduction of research activities, purpose of the study, description of the risks and discomforts, description of benefits, disclosure of alternatives, assurance of anonymity and confidentiality, offer to answer questions, noncoercive disclaimer, and the option to withdraw (Grove, Burns & Gray, 2013).

Upon signing the document, the volunteers was expected to complete the study and was not allowed to leave unless it was deemed medically necessary.  The consent also stated that the participant will “involve a loss of privacy” which is not sufficient in detailing risks and discomforts that may incur when participating.  The participants also acknowledged that by signing the form, the researchers are released from any liability that may occur during the study.

The volunteers consented to the study although they were not given full disclosure of the intended study.  The researcher did not give adequate explanation on the consent regarding the details of participant’s roles.  This research would not be approved to current standards of research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Review the informed consent posted on the website for this study. Does it contain all essential elements of an informed consent? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Review the informed consent posted on the website for this study. Does it contain all essential elements of an informed consent? 

# data[].attributes.body
The informed consent for the study was missing the essential elements needed for validity.  The informed consent form only contained the principle investigator’s name, the duration, compensation, and consent for signatures.

# data[].attributes.body
What can be learned from this study is that human subjects can easily be manipulated and taken advantage when there is not an ethical committee to report to.  These college age men entered into this study for the promise of $15 a day without understanding the possible risks that they might encounter during this time.  Ethical committees such as the IRB are in place to help ensure that these unethical studies and violations of human rights will not occur in the future. These committees have strict guidelines that safeguard any human subjects who chooses participate in research.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should it have ever been approved? Why or Why not?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should it have ever been approved? Why or Why not?

# data[].attributes.body
No, the study should not have been approved according to the abuse and violation of human rights that occurred.  There is a lack of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, veracity, fidelity, and confidentiality in varying degrees.

The participants lacked the autonomy to ask questions during the experiment and the inability to leave the experiment according to the consent form.  The informed consent stated that “expected to participate for the full duration of the study” and only” released from participation for reasons of health deemed adequate by the medical advisors to the research project or for other reasons deemed appropriate by Dr. Philip Zimbardo”.

Full autonomy requires “participants to understand fully what is being asked of them and the effect participation will have on them; to be afforded the opportunity to ask questions before/during/after the study; and to comprehend that it is their choice to participate” (Doody & Noonan, 2016).  This lack of autonomy was evident when prisoner #8612 “suffered from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage” and was not released from the study immediately.  The participant was not allowed to leave until the researchers were convinced that he was actually suffering.

Instead of autonomy, the participants experienced pain, humiliation, hopelessness and fear.  The study lacked beneficence with the amount of suffering that the participants endured.  The study’s risk-to-benefit demonstrated that there was more harm to the “prisoners” mental and physical health in relation to the knowledge gained.  The study did not benefit the individuals or society as a whole.  The participants were dehumanized and treated poorly for the benefit of research.

# data[].attributes.body
Zimbardo argues that the study is ethical due to the fact that it “followed the guidelines of the Human Subjects Research Review Board that reviewed it and approved it” (Zimbardo, Maslach & Haney, 2000).  The National Research Act was passed in 1974 requiring that all research involving human subjects undergo an institutional review (Grove et al, 2013). Institutional Review Boards (IRB) ensure that " 1) risks to subjects are minimized, 2) risk to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, 3) selection of subjects are equitable, 4) informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subjects legally authorized representative, 5) informed consent will be appropriately documented, 6) the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring data collection for subjects' safety, and 7) adequate provisions are made to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data" (Grove et al., 2013).

For research completed within an institution, there has to be impartial entity that reviews the research proposal to deem it ethical. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, that entity is the Human Subjects Research Review Board.  For research approval, there is an IRB which determines if the study adheres to the code of ethics.  These codes of ethics are in place to protect human subjects who choose to participate in research with “voluntary consent, freedom from coercion, appropriate risk–benefit ratio, respect for autonomy, justice and fair selection” (Doody & Noonan, 2016). Therefore, the study was not ethical because it did not meet the requirements of these ethical codes.