Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of human experimentation
Animal experiments
Animal experiments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of human experimentation
Furthermore, human experimentation has not only expanded medical advancements, but it also enforced new laws. In an article written by Michael Carome, he discusses a seminal paper written and published by Dr. Henry Beecher about the new regulations for human experimentation. "Disclosures of unethical research such as those made by Beecher prompted the federal government four decades ago to issue regulations intended to protect human subjects involved in research and prevent unethical studies. These regulations, which were last updated in 1991, are based on three fundamental ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence and justice" (Carome). These regulations had not been put into place until the government was aware of them. Since there
were no laws that restricted experimentation without the consent of the subject, doctors and scientists could do as they pleased with no fear of consequence. Experiments like the Tuskegee syphilis study, the Nazi experimentations on Jews, and many more are what triggered the government to take action. During the time when these experiments were taking place, the government was unaware of what was going on. However, when the experiments had become exposed to the people, they began to fear that the experiments were also being conducted on them without their consent. This caused a fiasco because the people felt that could not trust their government or doctors. In order to ensure peace and trust with the people, the government put in place strict regulations. "The regulations require that most federally funded human research be reviewed and approved by a committee called an institutional review board (IRB) before the research begins. In its review, IRBs must ensure that research is ethical and meets criteria specified in the regulations. The regulations also mandate that researchers obtain and document the voluntary informed consent of all subjects, except in limited circumstances involving low-risk research" (1). In other words, experiments that are federally funded by the government must be evaluated by the institutional review board before they are given money and before they can proceed. This law was put in place to ensure that the subjects give consent and are aware that they are being experimented on for medical research.
Those who were affected by the testing in hospitals, prisons, and mental health institutions were the patients/inmates as well as their families, Henrietta Lacks, the doctors performing the research and procedures, the actual institutions in which research was being held, and the human/health sciences field as a whole. Many ethical principles can be applied to these dilemmas: Reliance on Scientific Knowledge (1.01), Boundaries of Competence (1.02), Integrity (1.04), Professional and Scientific Relationships (1.05), Exploitative Relationships (1.07, a), Responsibility (2.02), Rights and Prerogatives of Clients (2.05), Maintaining Confidentiality (2.06), Maintaining Records (2.07), Disclosures (2.08), Treatment/Intervention Efficacy (2.09), Involving Clients in Planning and Consent (4.02), Promoting an Ethical Culture (7.01), Ethical Violations by Others and Risk of Harm (7.02), Avoiding False or Deceptive Statements (8.01), Conforming with Laws and Regulations (9.01), Characteristics of Responsible Research (9.02), Informed Consent (9.03), and Using Confidential Information for Didactic or Instructive Purposes (9.04), and Debriefing (9.05). These particular dilemmas were not really handled until much later when laws were passed that regulated the way human subjects could be used for research. Patients
Furthermore, these doctors had no legal or ethical codes to conduct experimentations or research on African Americans. For example, during 1998, “172 employees, all but one of them black, sued Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory when they learned that they had secretly been tested for syphilis, pregnancy, and sickle-cell trait without their knowledge that the blood and urine they had supplied during required physical examinations would be tested…” (314). This indicates that there was no consent from these blacks and scientists where secretively testing immunities for sickle-cell on them without any permission whatsoever. The release of this experiment was against the Americans with Disabilities Act and these researchers had no right to release information without the patient’s consent. Furthermore, experiments that had no patient’s consent varied from blisters “to see how deep black skin went” to threatening surgeries, sterilization, inoculations, and not tested pharmaceuticals (54). Without consent, all experiments are considered as unethical. A patient’s consent is important because it is huge determination of privacy and respecting the patient’s wishes. Without any consent, it is indicating that patient’s do not have rights about their own privacy, which was against the law during colonial times and in present days. Some ethical guidelines include the right to withdraw from the study
During the process of research, professionals collect data or identifiable private information through intervention or interaction. While this is a vital part of the scientific and medical fields, every precaution must be taken by researchers to protect the participants' rights. Ethics, outlined by the Belmont report; requirements, described by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); and regulations, laid out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are verified by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This procedure assures that all human rights are safeguarded during the entire research process.
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.
Albert Sabin, the developer of the polio vaccine once said, “Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year.” Polio is a deadly disease caused by a virus that spreads from person to person. This infectious disease renders the brain and spinal cord helpless while also ensuring a permanent case of paralysis to the victim. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “…13,000 to 20,000 para-lytic cases were reported annually,” before the 18th century. After the introduction of the polio vaccine, “…a total of 2,525 paralytic cases were reported, compared with 61 in 1965.” This dramatic decrease in the prominence of the polio disease can only be attributed to the success of animal testing. Animal experimentation is used in the research of genetics, drug testing, biology, toxicity testing, cosmetic testing, and many other fields. Despite all of its beneficial traits, animal testing has been wildly controversial over the past decades because of its perceived unethical treatment towards animals. Although animal testing may be deemed unethical by many, it is a form of medical testing that has not only saved lives but has also greatly revolutionized the medical world.
In modern society, animal experimentation has triggered a controversy; consequently, vast amount of protests have been initiated by the animal rights community. Although these organizations have successfully broadcasted their concerns toward animal experimentation, its application continues to survive. Sally Driscoll and Laura Finley inform that there remain fifty million to one-hundred million animals that experience testing or experimentation throughout the world on a yearly basis. But despite opposition, animal experimentation, the use of experiments on animals in order to observe the effects an unknown substance has on living creatures, serves multiple purposes. Those particular purposes are: research of the living body, the testing of
In July of 1974 The National Research Act was signed into law. Through this act, The Belmont Report was developed over 4 year period of time that included an intense four day conference followed by monthly meetings until it was completed in April of 1979. The Belmont Report sets out to define the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The report was established prior to Barney Clark and the artificial heart and therefore was the guidelines that the doctors and researchers had to follow. The report highlights three essential ethical elements that are pertinent in human research and their applications. It was the professional responsibility of the doctors and researchers involved to abide by previously established ethical guidelines.
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation and animal research, is using various nonhuman animals experiments, whether it be a psychological or physical test of the animal, or testing medicines and cosmetics to determine if they are good enough for human use and consumption.This specific kinds of research are often conducted at various medical institutes, universities, pharmaceutical companies, and commercial facilities that does the task of testing the products on the animals. Each year, more than 100 million animals are used and die in the name of scientific research. Those animals include rats (12%), frogs (1%), cats (0.8%), dog (0.6%), mice (69%), monkeys (0.1%), guinea pigs (1%), rabbits (1%), fish (10%), and birds (4%). (BBC) Just like anything else, animal research has its pros and cons, but in this case, the cons severely outweigh the pros.
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)
In December 1946, the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg indicted 20 Nazi physicians and 3 administrators for their willing participation in carrying out the harmful research on unwilling human subjects. Thus, Nuremberg code was the first international code for the ethics to be followed during human subject research. It was permissible medical experiments implemented in August 1947. The code also provides few directives for clinical trials (3). Syphilis study at Tuskegee in 1974 was the most influential event that led to the HHS Policy for Protecti...
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1976. Call Number: HV4711.A56. American Medical Association. The “Animal Experimentation Benefits Human Health”. Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints?
...to find out something when they use children. The Tuskegee experiment exhibit how cruel researcher can also be, and how racial society was in 1932. The experiments show what can happen without regulations. There should be values and regulations to guide research in these experiments. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.
Human experimentation can save a lot of lives and lead to better understanding but it should only be done as a last resort or if the person signs a waver understanding all the risk and symptoms that are unhealthy and should be avoided. A lot of cancer treatments are experimental drugs such as one treatment for brain cancer where the injected the tumor with polio to get rid of the brain cancer. The save people’s lives and can do a lot of good but there should be strict laws and regulation the Nuremberg Code does a good job of that by having pretty strict regulations like the first regulation is voluntary consent. The second one the experiment has to yield good results. Third the experiment should be designed and based off the results of the animal experimentation. Fourth regulation is the experiment should avoid unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. Fifth regulation is if death or disability could occur it cannot be conducted. Sixth Regulation is the degree of risk should never be more important than the person’s life. Seventh regulation is proper preparation and nice facilities. Eight regulations the experiment should be conducted by scientifically qualified person. Ninth regulation the subject can bring experiment to an end. Tenth regulation scientist in charge must be prepared to stop experiment if subject could end up disabled or dead. Those regulations cover most of the bases
Disease ravages the population, killing hundreds, and researchers scramble to find a vaccine. How far will they go in their pursuit for prevention? What is worth progress? The debate of human experimentation is long-lived and there is still no clear answer. Human experimentation has had a controversial past, simultaneously beneficial and detrimental to humankind. Its ambiguity has continued in the 21st century, but despite continued harm to the human race, human experimentation has few restrictions in the present day. There should be more restrictions, and countries should be more serious about following them in order to prevent further unnecessary pain and suffering.
In today’s world there’s many controversies that many people don’t agree with such as animal testing for scientific use. Animal testing is a subject that is greatly divided, with a great deal of passion, emotion and ideas on both sides regarding the ethics of this practice. On the other side some are still at a cross-road with the subject, while agreeing with animal testing under special circumstances but not for other uses.