The article Marcia Angell wrote discusses the ethics of running clinical trials in areas of poverty such as third world countries. It is largely stressed that the well-being of participants should be the main priority of the study, above research goals and quick results. She explains that participants in clinical trials must receive the best-known treatment available when part of the control group; otherwise, researchers would knowingly be giving participants sub-par treatment compared to the drug being studied. To enact justice, even those living in third world countries should be receiving the same treatment that a participant in a first world country would receive. A placebo must be strictly avoided unless there is no known
I recently finished reading The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lack, a biography about Henrietta Lacks and how human tissue was taken without consent then used for medical research. Henrietta Lacks, was a colored woman, she was the daughter of a tobacco farmer, she came from a very poor, with very little education, she died from uremic poisoning, due to the treatment for cervical cancer October of 1951 at age 31. In January of 1951, Henrietta went to Johns Hopkins Hospital because she found a knot on her womb and was bleeding and had pain in her abdomen. Johns Hopkins is known for being the best research hospital around, but Henrietta did not go because
“In 1999, president Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) issued a report saying that federal oversight of tissue research is “inadequate” and “ambiguous”. It recommended specific changes that would ensure patients’ rights to control how their tissues were being used.” (page 327). Unfortunately, the changes were never made and scientists still have the ability to conduct research on one’s tissues without consent. The reason for why the changes were nullified remain unknown even to Wayne Grody an individual “who was in thick of the debate in the nineties, (for) why the congressional recommendations and NBAC report seemed to have vanished.”. Despite why the congressional recommendations suddenly disappeared, the scientific community is granted much sway over acquiring tissue which may well be considered unscrupulous. Even some of the leading scientist want people to have the ability to know and choose how their tissue is being used. “Ellen Wright Clayton, a physician who is director of the center for biomedical Ethics and Society at Vanderbilt University, says there needs to be a “very public conversation” about all of this …if the issue were stated that bluntly so people could really understand what’s happening and say there okay with it, that would make me more comfortable with what we’re currently doing.” (page 320). This quote indicates scientist are aware certain studies conducted may be contrary to one’s believes and that the general public should be informed of the research that will be conducted on an individual’s
Many social and political changes have taken place in the American society in the past few decades that make it unlikely for a study such as the Tuskegee study to not be widely criticized. The major social change that has taken place is a result of social media. Social media plays a major role because it is a way to quickly spread information around the world. Social media allows people around the world to share their experiences and opinions about all types of issues, thus allowing them to educate others about different situation that are occurring. Political changes that have occurred include new rules that guarantee what happened in the Tuskegee study does not happen again. There are now laws that require every study to be examined and approved by committees before any experiment involve humans is
Research that involves human participants raises a lot of ethical questions and concerns. Ethics refers to the norms or principles that generally guide any research as well as whether research activities are conducted the right or the wrong way. Additionally, ethics are the moral principles that govern the behavioral component when a certain activity is conducted, in this case the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (citation?). In summary, the Tuskegee Study is a medical research that was conducted over an extensive period of time from
There are many reasons why scientists use animals for scientific/medical research. The list can go and on. However, there are three important reasons why animal experimentation is beneficial. The first reason being that animals have been used in research for decades and have proven to be successful. Secondly, the anatomy of an animal is very similar to a human, which more than often leads to better results. Lastly, animals are much easier to handle than humans because they are more docile. There have been many arguments stating that animal experimentation is unethical due to fact that animals can suffer through a lot of pain and abuse during these experiments, but if one were to look at the positives, it is clear that the pros outweigh the
A new oral pharmaceutical drug for type- two diabetes had been approved for clinical use, it was called Compound 17392. Marketing companies instantly wanted to have prescribers adopt and sell the product and researchers wanted to further investigate previous reports of liver toxicity in patients. Now since paying patients to try new pharmaceutical drugs was an issue due to it appearing to interfere with clinical judgement and upholding the duty to do what is best for the patient, a new idea of furthering research for the drug came into play. The idea included recruiting a group of physicians who were in the top ten percent of prescribers for type-two diabetes. Following regulations put in place by researchers, these physicians were to enter eligible patients into the trial for Compound
Based on our past history (e.g., the Tuskegee experiment) it is now crucial to apply confidentiality and informed consent in studies, especially human subjects. Therefore, harm can reduced as much as possible. I feel the past history is a lesson that social scientists should avoid in studies. All human subjects are required to understand the risk factors and procedures in a study they are participating in. If they require confidentiality, researchers should also agree. Like you have mentioned they are helping researchers gain valuable evidence and this should be respected.
The outcomes new therapies produce may seem to justify and validate the means of over compensating subjects. Some may also contend that the benefit outweighs the harm, and the aim is to produce a net benefit over harm when considering beneficence and non-maleficence together (Gillon, 1994). Nevertheless, there is no obligation of beneficence to others, but there is an obligation not to harm (Gillon, 1994). The former utilitarian statement’s intentions appear virtuous, however, the true means the industry uses and their intent is flawed. Trouiller and colleagues’ (2002) evidence supports the claim that the pharmaceutical industry’s intent is to profit from research given their reluctance to develop new therapies that would help millions due to costs and risk of investment. Consequently, subjects are then merely a means. Given this, it seems relevant to consider a deontological perspective. When the intent of the research is to produce therapies for profit, the intent ignores the social duty to help and only benefits a few. Moreover, when intention is to profit, people become means and not the ends. Kant expressed that people should always be treated as ends and not only means (Munson, 2012). The practice of using humans as tools, seemingly, is a dehumanizing practice and in itself harmful. Accordingly, the intentions reinforcing the guidelines and practices of the pharmaceutical industry undermine the principle of
The participants selected and the methods of selection will ultimately define the boundaries of the study results. Judging the external validity of a study (i.e.: Assessing to whom the study results may be applied) requires that a comprehensive description of the selection standards and selection methods and descriptive data regarding
There were numerous reasons why I designed an intervention to tackle Kyle’s lack of personal hygiene and personal care. This intervention was sparked by numerous comments other people said in relation to Kyle’s lack of hygiene and this provided me with the idea of facilitating a one-to-one programme with Kyle.
Medical Research has the potential to advance society and make life better for everyone in it. However, the ends cannot justify the means; the rights of the subjects of research cannot be violated no matter the possible benefit to mankind. Despite this, time and time again, it has been very easy for, at least allegedly well-meaning scientists to violate the rights of their research subjects because they wanted to help society as a whole. Such experiments were not performed in secret by a minority of scientists; they were often done “by respected investigators at leading medical institutions and were published in medical journals (Scandals and Tragedies 3)." It is vital that we understand the circumstances of these experiments and why they happened so
Many people have different ideas on animal testing and if it is or is not appropriate for medical research. Many disagree, but there are some that think it’s necessary for testing to be done. Animal testing is necessary because it helps develop life saving medical treatments for not only humans, but animals, and it helps determine how medicine will react to the human body.
If someone searches human experimentation online it will tell you that human experimentation can be broadly defined as anything done to an individual to learn how it will affect him or her afterwards. Experimentation on a human being is the experimentation of humans to help find cures and to help fight off things like illnesses or diseases. It can also help provide us with the medicine and knowledge of what medication should be used to treat the injury or illness medication treats things. Like headaches, sore muscles, injuries, and many more things. There is a lot of debate over human experimentation and whether it is right, if it works, or if it is needed at all. Experimentation on humans, while sometimes beneficial, often has resulted
Animal testing is a phrase that most people have heard but are perhaps still unsure of exactly what it involve. Whether it is called animal testing, experimentation or research, it should be defined as all testing methods on animals including, medical exploration, cosmetics, toxicology trialing, and psychological examination involving animal subjects. It is used to assess the safety and effectiveness of medications and beauty products as well as understanding how the human physiology works. While supporters believe it is necessary practice, those against animal testing believe that it involves torture and suffering to animals. Medical research is the hardest case of proposition in the debate whether animal testing should be banned or not, since it has previously yielded substantial benefits for humanity. Throughout moral, humanistic, and social perspectives animal testing is beneficial for medical evolution.