Final answer:
The researcher was applying the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence by evaluating the risk-benefit ratio and ensuring no harm and potential benefits in the survey of diabetic clients. The principle of justice is also implied by fair and equitable treatment of participants.
Step-by-step explanation:
The researcher assessing the risk-benefit ratio and concluding that there were no harmful effects associated with a survey of diabetic clients was likely applying the principle of nonmaleficence and the principle of beneficence. The principle of nonmaleficence requires that the research design limits harm to participants as much as possible. Meanwhile, the principle of beneficence focuses on actions that benefit participants and ensure that they are treated fairly while promoting the overall good of the research subjects.
Moreover, when discussing clinical trials and research, the principle of justice is also relevant, as it insists on equitable and fair treatment of all participants. In the given context, the researcher evaluated the outcomes to ensure that no harm was done and that potential benefits were achieved, thus fulfilling both ethical standards. All risks and benefits must be clearly outlined to ensure informed consent, and any potential harm should be presumed and proceeded with caution, as per the precautionary principle.