Looking back at my memories, I can safely say that I enjoyed two things during primary school; science and reading. Although biomedical science is hardly “plant a seed and watch it grow”, small observations such as the plant certainly sparked some interesting questions for a 10 year old. “How does the seed know which way is up when it’s in the soil? Why does the plant grow towards the sunlight?” It often frustrated me that I could never get the answers to all my questions. Growing up, I still have multitudes of questions without an answer, ranging from science specific questions such as “How can the pandemic of obesity and its related diseases be prevented in the Western World?” to ethical debates; “the gene for converting yellow fat to brown …show more content…
From reading “Kill or Cure: An Illustrated History of Medicine” it was intriguing to discover how Hippocrates, the father of Western Medicine, applied simple methods including standardising protocols such as hygiene and medical procedures, to build a foundation for modern techniques which are still employed in current medical practices. I was able to see such medical practices in action at my work experience in the Pathology and Haematology Laboratories of Hammersmith Hospital. In addition to this, I shadowed accomplished Biomedical Scientists and familiarised myself with various complex equipment, common in laboratory environments to test several specimens; this helped me develop on practical skills that I learnt in my Biology and Chemistry A-Levels. (add analytical skills). Overlapping with psychology, another subject that piques my curiosity, neuroscience is one aspect of biomedical science in which I have an interest in. As part of Science Week, I attended Birkbeck School of Science for a psychological lecture. Here, different complex cognitive mechanisms carried out for a visualisation and facial recognition were discussed as well as its related cognitive disorder prosopagnosia, colloquially known as face blindness. Unfortunately, the lecture was discussed from a more psychological aspect. Wanting to find out more, I recently enrolled onto several FutureLearn courses
Twenty four centuries ago, Hippocrates created the profession of medicine, for the first time in human history separating and refining the art of healing from primitive superstitions and religious rituals. His famous Oath forged medicine into what the Greeks called a technik, a craft requiring the entire person of the craftsman, an art that, according to Socrates in his dialogue Gorgias, involved virtue in the soul and spirit as well as the hands and brain. Yet Hippocrates made medicine more than a craft; he infused it with an intrinsic moral quality, creating a “union of medical skill and the integrity of the person [physician]” (Cameron, 2001).
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Can patients with Alzheimer’s disease participate in clinical research? Theoretically, two radically opposite views regarding this issue can be posited. The first one, which is rather “conservative” could, in principle, argue that because of pervasive cognitive impairments AD patients are vulnerable and not capable of giving informed consent with a similar degree of responsibility as that of healthy individuals. When a surrogate’s decision is required for participation in research, this decision can never be equivalent with the actual patient’s decision, since no one can know exactly what the patient desires. This generates important issues concerning the participation of these patients in research especially under the light of the ethical principle of autonomy. There are a number of cases when this position is relevant: research involving health risks for the patient, minimal benefits compared with the risks, or the use of placebo.
Today doctors can treat this disease with minimal efforts, however, during the 14th century very few weren’t sure on how this disease actually spread and therefore didn’t know how to treat it. Physicians used to practice crude and unorthodox techniqu...
In this diverse society we are confronted everyday with so many ethical choices in provision of healthcare for individuals. It becomes very difficult to find a guideline that would include a border perspective which might include individual’s beliefs and preference across the world. Due to these controversies, the four principles in biomedical ethic which includes autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice help us understand and explain which medical practices are ethical and acceptable. These principles are not only used to protect the rights of a patient but also the physician from being violated.
“All over the world there are enormous numbers of smart, even gifted, people who harbor a passion for science. But that passion is unrequited. Surveys suggest that some 95 percent of Americans are “scientifically illiterate.”
Ethics refers to the values and customs of a community at a particular point in time. At present, the term ethics is guided by the moral principles that guide our everyday actions. These moral principles guide the researcher into deciding what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The foundation of medical ethics is governed by two philosophical frameworks that are deontology, and utilitarianism. However ultimately the ethics committees need to balance the risks, and benefits for the participants and the community associated with the particular research proposal. This balance is quite important as the well being of participants is at risk.7
The case of Dr. Lowell and Mrs. Jackson revolves around a conflict between the doctor, who advocates the implementation of a particular treatment and the patient who disagrees with the doctor and wishes to do things her own way. The doctor feels that the suggested course of action is disastrous and threatens to have the patient declared mentally incompetent. The question now is whether or not the doctor is morally justified in taking action against the patient in order to implement the course of treatment she feels would be most effective. Is this an infringement on the autonomy of the patient or is the doctor morally obliged to do everything that he/she can possible do in order to restore the patient’s health even if that includes to go so far as to take this decision out of the hands of the patient?
Over the course of history, the U.S government had conducted unethical experiments on unsuspecting citizens. There were medical experiments performed on poverty stricken people all for the name of science. Many of these experiments were done without people’s consent and left victims with severe physical and psychological damage. The victims were stripped away of their individuality and were given the titles of human guinea pigs, with no consideration for well-being. However, can medical science be greatly aided by discoveries that are deemed unethical admittedly by most? Is it right to expend hundreds of murderers in order to save millions from a future epidemic? Would the ends justify the means in order to discover this? I think not. In brief, this urban legend illustrates the degradation of our society’s system of basic human values.
My love for neuroscience began long before my passion for neuroscience research. My favorite aspect of psychology since my initial encounter in Advanced Placement Psychology in high school is the nervous system and brain function in relation to behavior. It is fascinating how something so small serves such an extremely important and vital role in our body and behavior. The intriguing details of the brain fuel my desire to learn more about its functions. After completing the Biological Basis of Behavior and Neural System Courses at the University of Maryland, my knowledge as well as curiosity for the brain heightened.
The history of medical research in the twentieth century provides abundant evidence which shows how easy it is to exploit individuals, especially the sick, the weak, and the vulnerable, when the only moral guide for science is a naive utilitarian dedication to the greatest good for the greatest number. Locally administered internal review boards were thought to be a solution to the need for ethical safeguards to protect the human guinea pig. However, with problems surrounding informed consent, the differentiation between experimentation and treatment, and the new advances within medicine, internal review boards were found to be inadequate for the job. This led to the establishment of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission by President Bill Clinton in the hopes of setting clear ethical standards for human research.
Withdrawal of life support from a pt with massive stroke, CVA and never regain consciousness is permissible in Islam
Interpreted literally, ethical judgements do seem to limit methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural sciences; it’s not difficult to imagine the chaos of a world void of any kind of ethical considerations. However, can knowledge in the natural sciences even be compared to knowledge in the arts? Knowledge in the natural sciences includes knowledge that helps improve methods used in hospitals to treat previously untreatable illnesses. Art at first glance does not hold enough weight to be compared because it reaches a smaller number of people giving it less importance than knowledge gained in natural sciences. Nevertheless, art might not reach many people at one time, but it does spread ideas and judgements that go beyond the unanswered questions, hypothesis, and speculations of the natural sciences.
Ethics is the study of moral values and the principles we use to evaluate actions. Ethical concerns can sometimes stand as a barrier to the development of the arts and the natural sciences. They hinder the process of scientific research and the production of art, preventing us from arriving at knowledge. This raises the knowledge issues of: To what extent do moral values confine the production of knowledge in the arts, and to what extent are the ways of achieving scientific development limited due to ethical concerns? The two main ways of knowing used to produce ethical judgements are reason, the power of the mind to form judgements logically , and emotion, our instinctive feelings . I will explore their applications in various ethical controversies in science and arts as well as the implications of morals in these two areas of knowledge.
Hippocrates, often called the “father of medicine” was one of the earliest contributors to modern science. He was called the father of medicine because through his medical school, he separated medical knowledge and practice from myth and superstition basing them instead of fact, observation, and clinical ...