Human Subject Research And Ethical Issues

The investigation of conducting research with human subjects, is an original portent in our modern history of medicine. This investigation is a scientific research, which consist of a project to obtain data on human beings (through private information or interaction), which then serve as research subjects (FSU, 2014). Any study that consists of human subjects, must follow a list of protocols, such as obtaining a consent, then submitted for approval to the International Review Board (IRB). The participation of these individuals, has caused ethical problems and concerns relating to autonomy and privacy (Arras, London, & Steinbock, 2013). Human subject research is ethical since it is a procedure for drug trials, procedures and developing treatments for diseases, which may also add to available research information to support others.

I believe the act of using human subjects is considered moral and will bring the greatest good for the greatest number, as described by the utilitarianism theory (Arras, London, & Steinbock, 2013).

The intended outcome of research involving human subjects, will serve as an improvement for treatments, organ donations and medicines for individuals who may be suffering or considered terminally ill. If researchers were not conducting these studies, then we wouldn’t know what treatments would work best for certain diseases, nor know the side effects of the medications that we consume to aid cure illnesses. For example, tissue specimens have served as therapeutic interventions and carried out for the benefit of the patient (Kapp, 2006). I vouch for researchers, as they usually have a desire to do what’s best for the individual with the intent of obtaining positive

outcomes.
On the opposing side, individuals will argue and state that drug researchers may cause false hope of the participating individual. With the constant improvement with medicine and technology, progressively more individuals are participating in scientific research for their own benefit. The ethical value of beneficence (doing good), remains implicated with these individuals, as every action is taken into place to protect them from harm and experience the greatest benefit (Kapp, 2006). These individuals are also made aware of risk and complications, as there is extra access to information with technology. Additionally, they are required to provide consent, as the researchers won’t get approval from the IRB, if no consent was obtained from participants, as this is respect for the person.
The opposing side will also argue that, a portion of wrongful cases have taken place with proof of studies they read from previous centuries. It’s problematical to compare modern medicine with longstanding cases, as a percentage of individuals with chronic illness have found some type of cure, with interventions that were not available outside of clinical research. Some effective treatments, that people have used, are only recognized for the reason that scientific research was conducted and a positive outcome was obtained.
The continuing advancement in the health of individuals, in present and future time, will rely on the research from human subjects. The scientific studies will continue, allowing us to benefit from the conclusions of the effective medicines and treatments and pathology of diseases. With recent regulations that researchers must follow with human subjects, will only allow factors to improve, bringing the greatest good for the greatest number of people and serving equality for all.