Human Experimentation 2nd installment- Zach Nix

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.

I commented on Jonathan and Joseph's 2nd installments.