Along with discussions on psychiatric diagnosis, Rosenhan’s study raised a number of ethical concerns. In particular, while being informative, the experiment is often considered ethically unacceptable and methodologically incorrect. No informed consent was obtained from the hospital staff, which should be considered the participants of the study, equal to pseudopatients and other involved patients. Thus, medical personnel was initially deceived, and contemporary research standards would require Rosenhan to modify the study’s ethics before conducting it.
On the other hand, the ethical concerns associated with the experiment might have been justified at the time since the findings impacted the mental health diagnosis and approaches to psychiatric care. The APA’s ethical standard of beneficence prioritizes the protection of patients and eliminating bias, prejudices, and affiliations that influence research. Rosenhan acted independently in the research, and study findings brought significant benefit to the field of psychiatric and mental health care. Furthermore, the names of hospitals, staff, and patients were concealed to prevent identification and associated consequences for the parties. Rosenhan was among the first to emphasize the adverse effects of stigma on patient diagnosis, treatment, and well-being. The responses of hospital staff to pseudopatients’ revealed such issues as depersonalization and powerlessness of patients, which are critical to their treatment and outcomes. Hence, the positive elements of Rosenhan’s experiment imply the relevance of the study methods in the given period.