Ethical Decisions In Medical Research

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.

Genetic engineering has been the subject of controversy since it first started. There is a lot of fear and concern surrounding the possibilities it presents. It is difficult to make ethical decisions about genetic engineering because if offers opportunities to solve many genetic problems such as hereditary diseases. The consequences are positive and negative, but there is no way to determine which will have a greater impact. Genetic engineering could lead to new treatments for hereditary diseases, but it could also have long-term adverse effects. Although there are benefits to genetic engineering, the negative side cannot be overlooked.

Social: There should be some sort of legal control/law that need to be placed on the company/group of scientists, so that in the event of an unforeseen consequence during the gene manipulation process such as mutations/diseases which is uncontrollable, they may be held liable. This would ensure society that they are trying to do the process properly and not follow any shortcuts. Furthermore, a review of the genetically modified product should be in place before it can be handled or distributed anywhere outside of the laboratory, again ensuring society that the transgenic mammals will do no harm.

The informed consent and the disclosure of potential cells that could be developed into a commercial product is to respect research subject’s autonomy. It's a way to ask whether they want to participate in the study. As technology progresses, the people who are affected by the researches increased. “ Because of the power of genetics, you can study these materials and find out secrets about a person and his or her relatives,” says Arthur L.Capian,director of the Center Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia [Strauss, 190]. Science now has the ability to identify genes from a single cell, it was no longer using tissue scraps for experiments-it was that someone could uncover the research subjects’s genetic information and violate their privacy and their children’s privacy. In 1976, John Moore’s case doctor,David Golde has used his cell to develop, market and patent a cell line called MO. Patenting cell lines did not require informing or getting permission from the “donors” during that

What the scientists are doing is morally right because the contributions their studies are making to medicine are worth giving up a few cells.

Since Gregor Mendel began his experiments with pea plants in the mid 19th century, the field of genetics has grown vastly. Now known as the father of genetics, Mendel was the first one to study heritable traits. Since then, we’ve gone on to discover the structure of DNA, sequencing the entire human genome, studying genetic diseases, discovering mitochondrial DNA, and currently diving into a new field of genetics, called epigenetics, which looks at how the outside environment can affect how a person’s genes are expressed. But as we learn more and more about the microscopic molecules that make us who we are, we begin to step into controversial territory concerning human ethics. Lately, scientists

Although some public opinions are offered on the issue of limiting genetic testing and research, they are vastly conflicting. “The facts relevant to an issue in bioethics are often challenging to establish and evaluate, as they may be technical, probabilistic, counterintuitive, disputed, conjectural, private, etc. Moral values may also be difficult to establish and evaluate since they derive – rationally or emotionally – from a variety of sources: social, political, religious, professional, familial, personal, etc” (Yesley). For example, from a religious perspective, Catholics are conscious of the experiments, and do not support the aspects that will not improve the greater good of society. “As Catholic social tradition teaches, concern for justice goes beyond individuals to consider the common good, and evaluation of any particular social development includes consideration of its effects on the interdependent welfare of

This hotly debated topic of whether it is dangerous “playing God” has caused many religious, political, scientific, and public figures to express their concerns in heated debates (Hogarth para 9). Ever since the beginning of gene therapy, there has been constant dispute and friction over the direction of its future; of whether gene therapy will evolve into a therapeutic science or lead to horrible consequences as the eugenics movement did in the 20th century. The ethics of gene therapy have been based on, not only the beliefs, but also the fallbacks and advantages gained in experimental trials, which has inevitably lead to the progression of the future of gene therapy.

This brings up another issue of whether the patenting of human genes is ethical. In 1997 the United Nations released an article stating that research on the human genome was improving health of the “individual and humankind as a hole ”, but it should also respect “human dignity, freedom and human rights as well as the prohibition of all forms of discrimination based on genetic characteristics. ”

Genetically modified Organisms (GMOs) are the result of artificial genetic modification of organisms. Typically plants and livestock are modified to resist disease, herbicides, and pests (Tsatsakis, et al). Furthermore, the biotech industry is growing in sales as well. In 2012, biotechnology generated about 323.8 billion US dollars (Tsatsakis, et al). While scientists search for the safest possible methods of genetic modification, many people disagree with the use of GMOs, and some actively try to shut down Biotechnology centers for their practices. Likewise, it is argued whether GMOs are safe enough to consume in our food. While many experiments and studies suggest that GMOs have some risk, no matter the method, many actually ignore the facts given that show us GMOs are more beneficial than harmful to our society.

We are at a point in time where critical decision revolving around the ethicality of new technology are being made. One of these upcoming technologies is genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is defined as making changes in the DNA code of a living organism, and it has a wide variety of uses from creating bacteria that produce insulin to enlarging the size of corn. However, DNA can also cause disorders. Because of this, Genetic screening was created. Genetic screening is the process of testing DNA to determine a person’s risk of having or passing on a genetic disorder to future generations, and this is used to find out the chances of a person’s offspring having a genetic disorder. The controversy surrounding genetic engineering lies in this: gene therapy. Gene therapy is the replacement of a defective or missing gene or the addition of a new gene into a person’s genome to treat a disease. This process is experimental and risky which gives reason to the controversy surrounding it.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have served as a topic of great debate in recent years. Before the existence of genetic engineering, humans have used the process of artificial selection to only breed certain organisms with desirable traits or genetic qualities. While this practice has been proven to be effective, selective breeding can only manipulate the naturally occurring variations within different breeds. Genetic engineering allows scientists to break this limitation by introducing genes into an organism from a completely unrelated species. This practice is commonly carried out on consumer goods such as crops, livestock, and bacteria. These GMOs can offer a variety of advantageous products, including

Before the realm of science was widely accepted, ethical debates were still very much prevalent in all aspects of life. More recently, with the introduction of new science and more research about the genetic code, we have added to our ethical debate “plate” in ways that could change the way humans live and grow entirely. Whether or not this type of power should be tampered with, falls under the realm of Bioethics. Bioethics is the general study of anything that can be argued ethical or unethical in the realm of life. Questions regarding Bioethics began surrounding everyday things such as applying for jobs and criminal investigations. Questions such as, “should scientists be able to take cells for research from patients without permission” and “should humans be used for medical and psychological studies”? These Bioethics became largely challenged when presented with questions about what we should do with Stem Cells, Cloning, Artificial Chromosomes and the like. However, with new diseases and new scientific findings the need for new forms of medication is on the rise. Doctors in this day and age are always expected to be finding the answers to the latest most threatening diseases on the planet. People even look to them to cure things in their body that cannot be cured. A lot of times we can do some amazing things with modern medicine so it is only natural to think we are capable of much more. Interestingly, with recent studies in ideas such as the use of Stem Cells and

Ruben Guizar Philosophy Over the last decade, the advent of cloning and advancements in human genetic research have presented society with a complicated moral quandary. Debate rages as to what constitutes legitimate paths of inquiry and where to draw the line as to research that strikes many people as morally wrong. The basic question is: "how does society determine what 's right?"

Genetic Engineering on humans in the U.S. is a widely debated topic on whether it should be permitted in the U.S. or not. Genetic engineering is defined as processes that allow the changes of genes in an organism. The reason for the critical debate originates from the ethical and moral viewpoints that each side holds. Whether it be the potential benefits of changing an individuals genes for the better or to ensure that individuals live without debilitating diseases. Others argue that people should not tamper with things that they do not know, such as the consequences for their actions and additional worries about the potential harm to human genetic variation. However, scientists and researchers will continue to explore the possibilities of genetic engineering because of the many possibilities that it holds and thus the controversy of this topic will continue.