Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues concerning human subject experimention pdf
Ethics in experimentation pros and cons
Ethical issues concerning human subject experimention pdf
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Introduction:
Throughout history there are many examples of humans conducting experiments on other humans. Over the years human experimentation has greatly advanced the knowledge of human physiology and psychology, leading to better treatments for ailments both physical and mental as well as a better overall understanding of the human constitution. Despite all of the good which human experimentation has done for the human race there have been times when experimenters have taken human experimentation past the bounds of morality. This unethical human experimentation is most often caused when the experimenters are, in some way, able to justify their experiments.
What is Unethical Experimentation?
Unethical human experimentation can be defined as experimentation on a human subject in which either the subject is an unwilling participant and/or the subject of the experiment is subjected to unnecessary pain or discomfort be it physical, mental or emotional.
Historical instances of unethical human experimentation:
Although many of the most horrific examples of unethical human experimentation have occurred during times of war, unethical human experimentation has also occurred during times of peace.
Some of the earliest recorded instances of unethical human experimentation occurred in the 1700’s when doctors tested vaccines on their slaves, often without informing them of the dangers involved. Edward Jenner who was a pioneer in inoculation against smallpox and has been called the “Father of Immunology”, tested smallpox vaccines on neighboring children and even his own son. In his most famous experiment he injected an eight year old boy with pus scraped from the blisters of a milkmaid infected with cowpox and then later on two differ...
... middle of paper ...
... hours or were stripped of their clothing and forced to endure temperatures as low as 21 degrees for hours.
In another German experiment subjects were placed in a low pressure chamber which simulated conditions at altitudes of up to 66,000 feet.
Justifications:
There are three major justifications that people use when conducting unethical human experimentation: they are just following orders, the subjects of the experiments are inferior, or that it is war.
Conclusion:
A lot of good has come about as a result of human experimentation. Through the dissection of cadavers we are able to learn much about how the body functions and through drug tests we are able to find cures and treatments for diseases. However, there have been many incidents throughout history where human experimentation has crossed the bounds of morality and resulted in horrific atrocities.
Medical Experiments of the Holocaust As a society we place those in the medical profession on a pedestal. They are people to be looked up to and admired. In many ways they are Gods, right here with us on earth. People put the hope and faith in doctors, hoping they can perform miracles. Throughout history, doctors have performed many wonders.
society so these experiments are not seen as heinous or inhumane. This Information is all revealed in the introduction. The author tells this from a moral standpoint. The social construct determines if a particular event is seen as good or bad. Experiment back then on people were seen as okay but if they were performed on they would be extremely tabooed. The government even participated in human experiments to show how okay it was back then. In Conclusion, I am convinced that these bias among the scientific community is what caused black people to still be afraid of the doctors to this day.
"Nazi Medical Experimentation: The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments." The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
Although not as strictly addressed, there is still a schism when it comes to the matters of experimentation involving animals. Those in opposition of it see it as being against the will of the animal, because animals have no say in the matter. However, through animal experimentation there has been vast medical advances in hospitals and veterinarians , research has led to cures for various diseases that would normally take many more years to cure, and the use of animals is highly ethical considering what could be the alternative, although there is progress being made to change these measures. This is how animal experimentation is of use to society for humans and animals.
Putting aside the countless claims that animal experimentation is unethical and should be banned, it is incredibly necessary and useful for mankind. Experimenting on humans is inhumane and completely immoral, while animals that do not function in the same way humans do should be used in medical research and to test the safety of various products. If animal testing were illegal, how would worldly corporations determine the safety of products? Surely the valuable lives of human beings are not essential to risk, hence the reason that animal experimenting is necessary. In addition, medical research would be in great jeopardy if were animals were not permitted to be experimented on. Medical industries have already come so far in treating multiple ailments due to the tests performed on animals. Alas, it is safe to say that for the continued thriving of our society, forbidding animal experimentation would be detrimental.
...xploitation are acceptable in society. Furthermore, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Moreover, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experimentation. And last but not least, those of who believe animal experimentation is wrong can chose not to purchase products that have been tested on animals.
Much controversy surrounds the humanity or inhumanity of using defenseless animals in experiments. Animals endure excruciating pain and suffer harsh conditions when used to test products. Many argue that animals are unable to consent to the tests. They are forced to undergo the pain put upon them and often die or are euthanized when no longer needed. Human beings feel as if they are superior to and more valuable than animals, yet, humans are more similar to chimpanzees than chimp...
An ongoing conflict among the human species is that of animal cruelty, whether it be by scientific experiments, tests, or research. I frequently wonder, do the individuals performing these atrocious tasks ask themselves if what he/she is doing is ethically correct? I believe that it is not right to treat animals in such an inhumane manner, but to treat them as our own kind, for they are clever, spirited beings. These helpless animals cannot defend themselves against abuse. In my opinion, it is morally appropriate to grant the same rights to animals as we human beings acquire and to end, or even just to minimize, animal cruelty in laboratories. Although there have been some benefits of animal testing for medical prospect, alternative methods exist and may even be more effective.
For years now people have been using animal experimentation to create new ways to help save the human race. There are people who believe that it does help, and that it is necessary to continue, while others oppose and want to fight for the elimination of animal experimentation. Scientists fight for the cures needed to help man kind, but struggle to do so as people fight against their work in progress. But as Jennifer A. Hurley stated, “History has already shown that animal experimentation is not essential to medical progress.” Stuart W.G. Derbyshire believes “The best hopes to treat or cure any number of diseases all rely in the current animal experiments.” Both sides have evidence that can allow both to be proven correct. But there are negative arguments that can prove the other wise. The real question to ask is, Does animal experimentation really help advance medical research?
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 opposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today. The history of animal experimentation and testing, and the arguments surrounding it, has an expansive and somewhat extensive history. Some of the first medical research that was conducted on living animals was done by Aelius Galenus, better known as Galen, in the second century C.E. There have been examples of animal testing in earlier dates, but Galen devoted his life to understanding science and medicine, so he is attributed to being the father of vivisection.
Development of Code of Ethics. In: McNeill PM, ed. The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993:37-51.
The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial issue over the past thirty years. Animal testing is a morally debated practice. The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. This paper will present both sides of this issue as well as my own opinion.
Scientific men are under definite obligation to experiment upon animals so far as that is the alternative to random and possibly harmful experimentation upon human beings, and so far as such experimentation is a means of saving human life and of increasing human vigor and efficiency (the ethics of animal experimentation)
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: