Clinical Trials In Developing Countries Case Study

In the text, Levine states, “widely endorsed by nations of the world, reflects a uniquely Western view of the nature of the person; as such it does not adequately guide investigators in ways to show respect for all persons in the world”

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

Clearly, these researchers had their own agenda to acquire a medical breakthrough that would change the history of science and contribute to the greater good of society. However, their authority was used in an unwarranted manner to accomplish their goals, regardless of their respectable intentions in wanting to make medical progress. In reviewing these researchers and medical practitioners’ actions during the 1950’s which entails series of unethical behaviors and violation of human right, it develops an essential need to establish guidelines in the attempt to protect patient’s rights and privacy. Furthermore, due to the alternatives that arise throughout this case, there are many possible outcomes to be considered that could have a significant impact on stakeholders if these courses of action are fallowed. These solutions consequences may involve the tentative research, an advance way of life for the Lack’s family, political turmoil, economic health impact and a society whose cells may have similar experience.

Through the ages, men have been able to find cures for catastrophic diseases through scientific research. Thanks to these advances, men have been able to prolong the life span of people, or provide better quality of life in cases in which a cure of various maladies has not been possible. To achieve such progresses, scientists have made use of prior knowledge, new theories, and technology obtaining numerous prodigious outcomes. Unfortunately, there have been many who have used questionable means for such ends. The German Max Clara is another case of a man with power and knowledge of science, who has misusing them. This paper aims to briefly identify principles and standards that would have been violated these days according to the existing APA Code of Ethics. Finally, ethical implications of making a moral judgment on past actions by researchers regarding human experimentation are discussed.

When comparing Marcia Angell, Harold Varmus and David Satcher’s arguments, their differences primarily stem from how they approach the Belmont principles. Beginning with Autonomy, Marcia Angell believes Third World research violates this principle because these populations are being viewed and respected differently than individuals living in the First World. On the other hand, Harold Varmus and David Satcher argue each individual is being respected because “persons in developing countries deserve research that addresses their needs” (Varmus and Satcher 1997). Furthermore, Angell argues the principle of Beneficence is not being followed because some research participants are being harmed by not receiving the treatment they need. Conversely,

This section of Chalmers’ book makes the reader ponder the morality of medical experiments like abortions, stem cell research, and infanticide in the world today and questions whether we have learned from Nazi medical experiments in the past.

protect. A plethora of studies have highlighted the pitfalls and bias of the system with regards to

Misconception with equipoise will make the barrier between therapeutic and research null. Its goal in producing reliable and generalizable knowledge is coiled in with ethical difficulty. That’s why on an ethical standpoint, benefiting a collective group needs to be weighed with the rights of the participant patients in the clinical research. However, the goal of equipoise is beneficial since its main priority is extracting epistemic information from the randomized clinical trials. The useful information is needed since equipoise follows the principle of having “a state of genuine uncertainty.” This affects both theoretical and clinical. So, trials that are redundant can be marked out by taking equipoise into account since the trials have already been run where there is already certainty of the outcome. So, to detail what equipoise allows underneath the principle of “non-exploitation” is that there will be no exploitation of participants or patients with a needless trial that holds no useful outcome. Equipoise becomes a necessary condition in order for a trial to become ethical since trials must be reviewed to be deemed of value. But, there’s an underlying factor that equipoise’s uncertainty trials do not bring about and that is the health of the patients. Participant patients will undergo trials of uncertainty so there is a possibility that the patient may be harmed during the process. If the trial proceeds, then the health of the patients will be even more at risk, disregarded and exploited in order to grasp epistemic information. The moral principles between medical therapy and those that guide clinical research is different. Though, equipoise is valuable in a collective sense – it is exploitative of participant patients by failing to consider the balance with the subject and societal

As research and technology progress forward in time, the ethical considerations that must be taken along with, not only method of study but social ramifications continues to grow exponentially. At the time when cells were taken unknowingly from Mrs. Lacks, there were not strict regulatory guidelines as to how consent should be required along with many other now ill-practice methods of medicine seen at the time. Despite agreeing that the

Even though this occurrence happened almost 70 years ago, the prevalent themes still exist today. The allure of pharmaceutical money and the use of drugs on patients, for instance, sway some doctors, even when they are unnecessary or, worse, harmful (Koch 1). Reading about Lacks, it is clearly recognizable how necessary it is to have a moral compass in a field that requires utter respect towards

This class focuses on offenses that have occurred nationwide, leaving a long lasting negative impact on the world. This class has been discussing who is to be collectively held accountable for wrongdoings in society and the kinds of reparations done to right these wrongs. The discussion of the medical crimes committed during the Holocaust done by the Germans was an enthralling part of the discussion, and it was interesting to see how the Nazis were held accountable and how they took accountability for their actions. Americans, on the contrary, have committed their fair share of medical scandals, and have done little to accept responsibility. This essay looks at Eugenics, The Tuskegee Experiment, and the Stateville Penitentiary Malaria Study and the prejudice used against minority groups.

The article, “In Cancer Trials, Minorities Face Extra Hurdles,” gives testimony of individual cases as well as a conflict perspective in the healthcare industry for cancer patients and trials. In this essay I will aim to demonstrate the dynamics involved in cancer study trials, furthermore, demonstrating the conflict between social and racial inequality for cancer patients.

MOLLY: One ethical issue in the AZT trials was fairness, the people in the developing countries received a different course of the treatment than those in the developed countries. The African mother-baby patients were put at risk for the gain of American patients.

Two completely different viewpoints of randomized clinical trials are given, article one is against the idea and article two is for it. Article one argues that when a patient sees a physician; the physician has the duty to provide the best treatment for that

However, as time went on, several problems arose which had to do with the principle of justice in healthcare. In America, it is the accepted norm that it is unjust to treat one person better or worse than another person, in similar circumstances (Tong, 2007, p.29). In an attempt