Essay on Bioethics

Experimenting on animals need to be regarded as unacceptable by means of many due to the fact that it causes needless suffering to animals, the benefits of these experiments are yet to be proven, and any advantages humans do attain can be produced in different approaches than experimentation. The U.S. law permits animals to be poisoned, burned, shocked, starved, isolated, drowned, intelligence damaged, and addicted to drugs. There is no test that is prohibited and pain killers are not required, whether or not the test is painful or minor. Animal testing and experiments should be banned because of the excessive animal cruelty involved, the

Animals are living creatures and we should not experiment on them, forcing them to live with injuries or illnesses: It is wrong. We should not be able to manipulate them and hurt them forcing them to live with injuries or illnesses we inflicted without them being able to fight back. They suffer everyday being held in small cages with no freedom until they find their untimely end most likely being euthanized. Testing on animals is not even a reliable study; this is something that the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) argues. The AAVS is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to advocacy for animals and eliminating animals from all experimentation in the USA. The AAVS believe “animals have the right not to be exploited for science and we should not have to choose between helping humans and harming animals.” (2013, paragraph 9) Using animals in experimentations is questioned more and more every year because of the reduced reliability shown over time. Some scientific limitations are that even though a treatment or medicine may work on an animal the outcome on a human may be entirely different. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt says, “nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies.” (2013, paragraph 16) Studies using animals are flawed because of the differences in physiology, metabolism, anatomy, and genetics. Helen Marston brings up a

Human experimentations have been performed many times by scientist in order to solve medical mysteries in the past. These experimentations can link back to the early 1700s when George I offered free pardon to any inmate who was willing to be injected with smallpox (Wellness Directory of Minnesota). Human experimentation has always been a hot topic as it has been argued that it is both necessary and also morally wrong since it can both hurt and help and individual. People have argued that there is no other subject to be experimented on as there aren’t many other animals or subjects which share the same anatomy as humans. It can also be argued that some of the treatments performed on these individuals can potentially cause the deaths of the person

Human beings have no right to use animals like this, even if it is the so-called name of science. The former Maryland secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene told a news reporter, “Animals used in chemical testing are never given pain relief, they are always alive and fully conscious” (“Animal Testing”). Pain relief does not exist in the world of animal testing, which is absurd. A scientist should not be able to harm innocent animals, even if the animals are just rat or mice. This is a world where rabbits are supposed to be hopping along the grass, not cooped up in a cage, suffering from pneumonia. Scientists are beginning to develop alternatives, because according to a 2013 poll created by the Humane Society and Lake Research Partners, “Around two-thirds of Americans either strongly or somewhat oppose animal testing” (“Animal Testing”). At this rate, by 2020 over three-fourths of the people in America will hopefully have realized that animal testing is wrong, and it needs to stop. Stated in the article “Animal Rights”, “Animal experimentation to increase medical, biological, or physiological knowledge began hundreds of years ago” (“Animal Rights”). It almost feels as if animals are tested for meaningless numbers on a chart and then killed. There are many cheap, faster, and non-animal related tests that can replace the ones that are out there

Testing on animals for medical reasons does not make it okay. It is unethical that these animals are taken from their habitats and placed in confined cages to be test subjects. The experiments these animals are subject to include poisoning, vivisection and toxicology. That can be considered lucky, compared to others who are burned, crippled, and neglected intentionally in the name of medicine. At this time, there is no form of testing considered illegal. They are used as subjects until death. After each experiment data is recorded and time is allowed for the animal to heal for the next experiment (Cruelty Free). If the test results are not too harsh the testing continues with more dosage or a different product. Animals that survive cannot be released back into nature because the subject could negatively affect the ecosystem; even those that survive all experiments are killed (Neavs). Those animals never got to experience life outside of a laboratory. The conditions these animals go through are morally wrong but are ignored because it is considered research. The use of animals in should immediately be stopped and outlawed because it not right to sentence a creature to death because they have no say-so.

Human experimentation has been a practice for hundreds of years. Human experimentation is, “subjecting live human beings to science experiments that are sometimes cruel, sometimes painful, sometimes deadly and always a risk” (Human Medical). Humans have been test subjects for vaccines, medication, and procedure for doctors across the world. They have been used with or without their consent through various ways of testing and studies and have been taken advantage of during the entire process. Obviously, by testing humans, it is easier to see what will happen to other human patients than if scientist tested in a lab on an animal. Testing on the same species as the intended recipient is important because every animal has a different body composition

1. As employers, physicians have general liability in what three areas? The Practice’s Building and Grounds, Automobiles and Employee Safety.

It is argued that human experimentation is a direct violation of ethics and human rights. “Most ethical decisions in medicine are based on theories of ethics.” (Medical 2). To decide if an experiment is ethical or not, doctors should consider; whether or not the testing is therapeutic or nontherapeutic, if the experiment is research or just practice, the consent given to the doctor, and the risks to the procedure. (Medical 2). But some doctors decide to put medical research before patients and societies ethical beliefs. In 1963, physicians in a New York hospital injected several elderly patients with cancer cells without consent to study immune response. (Human 2). Also that same year, the government discovered some physicians were injecting pregnant women with thalidomide, although it hadn’t been approved for usage in the United States. (Human

The health workers are always confronted by the ethical dilemma in the process of performing their duties and responsibilities. An ethical dilemma occurs in the situation an individual makes a decision on the course of action that is best for him or her. It also occurs in the situation there are different courses of actions the person should choose from. An ethical dilemma is defined as the situation in which a person has two options to choose from, and both are morally correct but in conflict.

In the early 1920’s animal experimentation was crudely developed for testing and evaluating products and medicines. Animals, such as rodents, are injected with certain medicines or fed specific ingredients found in these products. Many results from these testings include pain and suffering for the animal experimented on. I believe that animal experimentation should have restrictions. These experiments can be important in discoveries relating to cures for diseases and other medications, but many animals are being harmed for the cause and treated as objects that can be used and disposed of.

For over 250 years, physicians have documented the progress of human experimentation. The practice of testing on humans has help develop a modern system of human testing known as clinical trials (Jenkins& Hubbard,1991). Previous work from the past has made huge improvements in medical future. The current work of clinical has given patients better medical treatments. While human experimentation has given much to modern research, it has sometimes failed to follow bioethics. The significance of human testing and history has lead to modern practice of Human drug trials.

The case of Dr. Lowell and Mrs. Jackson revolves around a conflict between the doctor, who advocates the implementation of a particular treatment and the patient who disagrees with the doctor and wishes to do things her own way. The doctor feels that the suggested course of action is disastrous and threatens to have the patient declared mentally incompetent. The question now is whether or not the doctor is morally justified in taking action against the patient in order to implement the course of treatment she feels would be most effective. Is this an infringement on the autonomy of the patient or is the doctor morally obliged to do everything that he/she can possible do in order to restore the patient’s health even if that includes to go

Animal experimentation has been an easy and ethically acceptable way to research and test medicines and treatments for humans since the time of the ancient Greeks. Animals opened the door for the scientists and philosophers of old to learn facts about the human body that were previously explained with magic and superstition. Naturally, science has come a long way since the ancient Greeks. Today, we have a whole host of medical resources at our disposal, which begs the question: Do we need animals in medical research anymore? In addition, the practices with regard to animals at thousands of labs across the United States have been notoriously vague for years. It has only been in the last fifty years that people have begun to question the necessity of animal testing, and the degree of freedom that lab workers should be given with these animals. Due to the availability of other options, the unnecessary testing of already proven theories, and the unreliability of results, it is evident that the rights and humane treatment of animals has precedence over their use in medical research.

the committee receives the consultation, the team sets up a meeting. Dr Fernandez says a consultation can be submitted by a staff member, patient or doctor. The issue at hand decides which team gets certain cases. Each sub-team has three (3) members who meet at each meeting. Once the team receives the consultation an interview is set up to interview the patient if the patient is able to be interviewed. A meeting is set up to interview the health care team and a review of the patient’s medical record is done. After all the information is obtained from the physicians and the records have been reviewed a decision is made.

The bioethical dilemma that I used in Module 1 was concerning animal testing and if it is reasonable to use animals in order for humans to advance scientifically, specifically in medicine. There are several individuals who feel as if animals are tortured needlessly. Although this is a popular viewpoint surrounding animal medicine, there are numerous rules and regulations ensuring that the animals are taken care of and treated humanely at all times, a couple of which are the IACUC Guidelines and the Animal Welfare Act (references below). These provide a framework so that the animals are not abused and we as a people may still conduct research in order to work towards various cures and treatments for the ill individuals in our society. The dilemma is that most individuals feel a moral obligation to ensure that animals are treated well and unfortunately media coverages are incomplete at best, leading those who are suspicious to