In my first installment , I posed several questions
about human experimentation. However, I tried to stay fair to both sides of the
argument. In installment 2 I will be stating my opinions and reasoning.
Concerning the
use of undeniably unethical research results I believe that it should be
treated in a case by case manner. Much like any scientific paper the research
should be reviewed for inaccuracies or bias. Simply because an individual is amoral
does not mean that the results they produce are skewed, though it does warrant scrutiny.
If data obtained by slaughter can save lives then it does indeed produce a “unique
opportunity” that otherwise would never have occurred. As was discussed in
class the use of such data can even be seen as a way to honor the dead. If the
lives taken provided data that saved lives then perhaps their deaths meant more
than just a war crime.
Concerning informed
consent, I agree for the most part with common practices. Although the way in
which researchers attempt to convey information to subjects needs to increase
to ensure that the subjects understand the study and risks more fully. Of more interest
is the ethics of terminal subjects in research. If a person is desperate due to
a terminal diagnosis then it is more likely they may participate in a type of
test that may be more likely to end in death. Most trails on gene therapy have
been targeted to genes that cause dearth early in life and many of the tests
have cause the premature death of the subject. These tests understandably make
one uneasy and need to be carefully monitored, but if the patient understands
that they are risking a slightly longer life in return for furthering the
research that may one day prevent their situation in the first place, then it
is easy to see the appeal. Tests outside of the body can only tell us so much
when concerning a system as complex as the human body, therefore, research such
as cancer studies need willing cancer patients or the disease will never be
cured. Tests such as these are the reason that any progress in medicine has
been made. Small pocks or polio would never have been cured if it was not for
the pioneers who risked their lives in a study or procedure that could have
ended their lives.
A more nuanced
issue concerning consent is the ability of the cognitively impaired to give
consent in the first place. In the case of children, it is obvious that they do
not fully understand the concept of death, not to mention the difficulty
explaining a procedure or test. While I generally advocate against the ability
of parents to declare the desires, such as religion, of their child, children
represent a huge demographic with unique traits that require their
participation in tests that outweighs the issues inherent in allowing a parent
to make life and death choices for a child. In the case of mentally impaired children
and adults the ability to understand their own situation may not be easily
determined. In these cases the specific impairment often has legal structures
already in place for decision making of these individual that should be used.
But if not I believe that the ethical action is to only allow for these
individuals to be research subjects if, despite impairment, they are consenting
when the nature of the research is explained to the best of the researchers
ability and that the research requires the specific participation of the
impaired demographic for proper results.
No comments:
Post a Comment