The ethics behind human research has been an ongoing debate for many years. How far can we take research in the name of science? Does it matter how many or who possibly gets effected along the way ? This journal addresses these questions along with others, as it expresses human rights when medical research is involved. While examining the history of medicine, you find that the United States and many other countries, fail to protect those that can not protect themselves by conducting “medical research” errors. Who is to blame? It is almost impossible for an individual to take a medication and be cured with no side effects. Yet, the demand and expectation for such a miracle drug is so pressing. If medical research had not been conducted, the progress we have seen today would not exists. With the help of court rulings and the tragic deaths of thousands of individuals, their have been set rules that must be followed when someone’s life hangs in your hand, in the name of medicine. Authors T. Iacono and R. Carling-Jenkins did an exceptional job by appealing to the readers pathos, as they open up about the uneasy times of the Third Reich and use of claims of fact within those troublesome times and the effects on our society today. The Third Reich was an unsettling period in history that shaped how research is conducted today. It was an unethical display of medical research that took place from 1931 until the end of World War II. Iacono and Jenkins explain that “ approximately 400,000 people with various types of disabilities were forcibly sterilized to prevent their procreation, using inhumane experimental procedures” (Iacono, 1123). Such procedures would include the exposure of reproductive parts of women and men to x-rays and high ... ... middle of paper ... ...at is being conducted is of value, and if the goals of the researcher(s) are clearly stated. It has brought a voice to the participants, allowing them to weigh out the possible benefits and losses of being experimental ginny pigs. Iacono and Jenkins allow you to see the growth in ethical concern the world has undergone by using emotional facts. They have done an exceptional job at convincing myself, as the reader, of the concerns surrounding medical research and have forced the accountability from experimenters to take responsibility and show where their moral obligations stand. Works Cited Iacono, T., and R. Carling-Jenkins. "The Human Rights Context For Ethical Requirements For Involving People With Intellectual Disability In Medical Research." Journal Of Intellectual Disability Research 56.11 (2012): 1122-1132. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.
“Nazi Medical Experiments.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Council, 10 June 2013. Web. 17 Jan. 2014.
When a person seeks medical attention they go with the hope that their personal rights will not be violated with the belief that doctors will uphold their personal standards. Unfortunately, this is not always so for people who visit the hospital. There are documented cases in United States history involving African Americans being experimented on for the greater good without their knowledge or consent, and some of the most heinous cases involve doctors injecting their study groups with life threatening diseases. What happens when good science goes bad and who has the right to relegate the status of another human being as less than? In this research paper we will examine a clinical testing case study featuring the violation and exploitation
As the human species develops, medicine follows suit. Researchers look down medicinal avenues which promise a better life-- a longer life. However, red and blue paint cannot engender purple paint without proper mixing. Thus, health sciences cannot expand without thorough experimentation. The Nazis exemplified this concept of “thorough experimentation” with their cruel and inhumane medical experiments. The trials varied in nature and reason. Some of the “experiments had legitimate scientific purposes, though the methods that were used violated the canons of medical ethics. Others were racial in nature, designed to advance Nazi racial theories. [However,] Most were simply bad science.” (jewishvirtuallibrary.org). The medical experiments performed by the Nazis were vast and highly divergent, but they can generally be divided into three categories: racial experimentation, war-injury experimentation, and pharmaceutical testing.
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.
The first article is entitled “of mice but not men: problems of randomized clinical trials,” is written by Samuel Hellman and Deborah S. Hellman discusses the issues of randomized medical testing and experiments on patients. The article describes the role of the personal physician and how the physician can take an ethical or unethical path of treating his/her patients. The relationship between the patient and physician is greatly emphasized because according to the article trust is very valuable in medicine especially when a patient’s life is at risk. A Kantian and a Utilitarian view of randomized clinical trials are debated but the authors clearly steers towards a Kantian point of view.
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)
Johns Hopkins Hospital would use people in their “public wards”, who were predominately of low socioeconomic status, as research material without any permission or knowledge of their participation (Skloot, 2010, p. 30). The main ethical principles that apply in the this scenario of not receiving consent to have personal information and even bodily material used for research are: Integrity (1.04), Rights and Prerogatives of Clients (2.05), Characteristics of Responsible Research (9.02), and Informed Consent (9.03). This dilemma was not handled correctly because doctors during that time were interested in studying cancer cells and believed that it was acceptable to take people’s cells as a form of payment because they were receiving free medical treatment. Henrietta, in particular, was never asked or even told that her healthy and tumorous cells were being extracted during the day of her first cancer treatment (p. 33). Those at stake during this particular issue are the patients in the public wards, including Henrietta, the doctors Richard TeLinde, George Gey, and Howard Jones, the Lacks family, and many other families who do not know their loved ones are being used for science. Although laws were not set in place at the time, the doctors should have been presenting patients with consent forms and fully disclosing all the information pertaining to how they
Third world countries and underdeveloped nations have become the new proverbial Petri dish of experimentation and offer particular conditions which researchers would never be able to find in their home countries. This only serves to highlight the problem that inherently faces all research studies, the ethical debate in regards to the protection and rights of their subjects. Is it feasible to expect the same standards to apply in certain countries where an economical imbalance between what is possible and what is not can be the largest hurdle to overcome? These are key issues examined in the New England Journal of Medicine by author Marcia Angell, M.D., and co-authors Harold Varmus, M.D. and David Satcher, M.D. in their respective articles that consider the ethical standards that should prevail in such circumstances. Should researchers be upheld to universal standards, or are the standards more applicable in a “local” sense, where the conditions and the constraints of the location provide the context for how the principles should be applied?
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "The Principles Approach." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 36-37. Print.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims to experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical i...
AV. Pathways to human experimentation, 1933-1945: Germany, Japan, and the United States. In: Sachse C, Walker M, eds. Osiris, 2nd Series, Volume 20, Politics and Science in Wartime: Comparative International Perspectives on the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2005:205-231.
"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.
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...
The dark history of human experimentation began with the clarification between experimentation and treatment. The larger public began to notice experimenters ethical neglect for their subjects in the early 1960s. Those charged with administering research funding took note of the public furor generated by the exposure of gross abuses in medical research. These included uncontrolled promotional distribution of thalidomide throughout the United States, labeled as an experimental drug; the administration of cancer cells to senile and debilitated patients at the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital; and the uncontrolled distribution of LSD to children at Harvard Medical Center through Professors Alpert and Leary. Most important was Henry Beechers 1966 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, detaili...
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.