What makes something unethical and what does it mean? Can it possibly have beneficial outcomes? Do all bad actions have bad outcomes? These are questions a child might ask but it’s also a question that all professional ask each other in relation to the unethical experiments that have crowded our history. Unethical experiments have been widely debated by medical societies for as long as it’s existed. The strain between defining what is right and what is wrong and what to do with something wrong that benefits what is right. Many medical journals and statements have been erased or simply not published because of the controversy surrounding the experiments stated. However, should a life saving outcome or beneficial research simply be denied because …show more content…
Jenner had begun his research in attempts to find a cure, or a way to prevent the disease, of smallpox. Edward Jenner noticed that those who were infected with cowpox did not become infected with smallpox. In order to test this theory, he began to inject healthy children with a strand of cowpox. He even went so far as to inject his own, 11-month, son to prove his theory. After he provided the evidence and data towards his theory he was bombarded with questions of morality. However, the benefits of his experiments outweighed the lack of ethics performed in his …show more content…
A group of people were selected to administer a series of shocks to a person behind a glass window. If the person answered incorrectly the authoritative figure would direct the person to administer a shock that increased in voltage every time. It was revealed that three-fourths of the group were obedient to the authoritative figure even though they could see the amount of pain they were causing them. The group was more inclined to follow directions if they knew the figure would take all responsibility for any harm caused to the person behind the glass. Many people questioned the morality of the experiment as it might have caused psychological damage to the group even after revealing it was an
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure. The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher is the real subject and the learner is merely an actor.
The teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
In this article “The Pearls of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram asserts that obedience to authority is a common response for many people in today’s society, often diminishing an individuals beliefs or ideals. Stanley Milgram designs an experiment to understand how strong a person’s tendency to obey authority is, even though it is amoral or destructive. Stanley Milgram bases his experiment on three people: a learner, teacher, and experimenter. The experimenter is simply an overseer of the experiment, and is concerned with the outcome of punishing the learner. The teacher, who is the subject of the experiment, is made to believe the electrical shocks are real; he is responsible for obeying the experimenter and punishing the learner for incorrect answers by electrocuting him from an electric shock panel that increases from 15 to 450 volts.
The apparatus used was a simulated shock generator that would administer the shocks but none would be physically damaging. The participants believed they were giving victim an electric shock ranging from 15 to 450 volts, but in actuality the machine was not working. Participants included 40 males who were between the ages of 20 and 50 years old (Milgram, 1963). Compensation was set at $4.50 for just showing up to the experiment, not based on the outcome. Participants believed that they were helping someone with a learning experiment to see how penalties affected remembrance (Milgram, 1963). The penalty is the electric shock given by the participants to the man they had never met. The person, participants believed was the subject of the experiment was an Irish-American man who was 47 years old. The experimenter conducting the experiment was a 31 year old high school biology
If a person of authority ordered you to inflict a 15 to 400 volt electrical shock on another innocent human being, would you follow your direct orders? That is the question that Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, tested in the 1960’s. Most people would answer “no,” to imposing pain on innocent human beings, but Milgram wanted to go further with his study. Writing and Reading across the Curriculum holds a shortened edition of Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience,” where he displays an eye-opening experiment that tests the true obedience of people under authority figures.
The fact that there have been many advancements in biomedical technology over the years have given us the ability to cure and prevent diseases that have once devastated the human population. These breakthroughs have allowed people to live longer and healthier lives, yet others believe that it runs the risk of “playing God” and that such matters should be left into the hands of a higher power. Today, this ethical debate still continues to raise questions on whether these scientific breakthroughs are morally acceptable. While I support the use of scientific breakthroughs, I believe that it should only be used for human benefit to cure those who are suffering from cancer. This approach seems more reasonable than using this technology to choose one’s eye color or keep someone on life support just because it is something that can be done, whether or not that is acceptable or not.
Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine).While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, in Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from
During one of his earlier apprenticeships, Jenner noticed milkmaids with a disease called cowpox. Cowpox is a close relative to smallpox and is only mild in humans. Pustules appear on the hands and a basic cold is also brought on. At Jenner’s young age he was able to link these two viruses together and come up with a theory for immunization. In 1796, while still attending medical school, Jenner decided to test this theory between smallpox and cowpox. He used a dairymaid, who was a patient of his named Sarah Nelms, who had contracted cowpox and had ripe pustules on her hands. Jenner realized this was his opportunity to test someone who had not contracted smallpox yet. He picked an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to use as his test subject. He scraped open a spot of James' arm and rubbed in a dissected piece of Sarah Nelms pustule into the open wound. A couple days later James became ill with cowpox but was well again within a week. This test proved that cowpox could be spread between humans as well as cows. Jenner's next test would be if the cowpox virus gave James immunity against smallpox. On July 1st of 1796, Edward Jenner obtained an infected smallpox pustule and scratched the virus filled pus into James' arm. This technique of placing a virus into a patient is called variolation. James Phipps did not develop smallpox within the
In the United States, the basis for ethical protection for human research subjects in clinical research trials are outlined by the Belmont Report developed in the late 1970’s. This document, published by the Nation Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, highlights three important basic principles that are to be considered when any clinical trial will involve human research subjects. They are; respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. (Chadwick & Gunn, 2004)
Summary of the Experiment In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on the teacher and the results of the experiments showed conclusively that a large number of people would go against their personal conscience in obedience to authority (Milgram 848).... ...
In 1961, Stanley Milgram, a Yale University Psychologist conducted a variety of social psychology experiments on obedience to authority figures. His experiments involved three individuals, one of them was a volunteer who played the role of the teacher, one was an actor who played the role of the student, and one was the experimenter who played the role of the authority. The teacher was instructed by the authority to administrate shocks to the student (who claimed to have a heart condition) whenever they answered a question incorrectly. The voltage of the shock would go up after every wrong answer. The experimenter would then instruct the teacher to administrate higher voltages even though pain was being imposed. The teacher would then have to make a choice between his morals and values or the choice of the authority figure. The point of the experiment was to try to comprehend just how far an individual would continue when being ordered by an individual in a trench coat to electrically shock another human being for getting questions incorrect. The experiment consisted of administrating pain to different people and proved that ordinary people will obey people with authority. Some of the various reasons are that the experimenter was wearing a trench coat, fear of the consequences for not cooperating, the experiments were conducted in Yale University a place of prestige, and the authority f...
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane; that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organism have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals. The argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.
Following the ethical codes and getting approval from the Institutional Review Board (if the study has human subjects) can really decrease the possibility of any harm being done to the participants. A perfect example of a research study that had lots of things unethical practices was the Tuskegee Syphilis study:
2. Mormon men who still practice polygamy today refer to Joseph Smith’s (founder of Mormonism) ideas and believe that if they have at least three wives, that they will become “Gods” in Heaven. And women who refuse to join polygamist families will be denied entree into Heaven. (Layton, 2004).