Ethical Implications in the Fields of Science and Arts Essay

It is no secret that millions of animals a year are used for medical experimentation. One study “found the number of animals tested rose from 1,566,994 in 1997 to 2,705,772 in 2012” (Casey). It is my belief that researchers use virtue theory to defend their experimentations. While animal activists approach experimentation through the ethics of care. I am against animal experimentation, but I will also provide insight into why people believe it is ethically just.

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.

“It is a simple fact that many, if not most, of today’s modern medical miracles would not exist if experimental animals had not been available to medical scientists. It is equally a fact that, should we as a society decide the use of animal subjects is ethically unacceptable and therefore must be stopped, medical progress will slow to a snail’s pace. Such retardation will in itself have a huge ethical ‘price tag’ in terms of continued human and animal suffering from problems such as diabetes, cancer, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and so forth.”

The art of medicine and curing diseases was not always approached in a scientific way. In fact, many advances occurred between 1919 to 1939, after technological advances allowed scientists to apply the scientific method to medical research. At this time, the ethics of using patients as test subjects either for new medicines or as samples for further testing were not considered. An extreme example of this was the Nazi’s using concentration camp inmates – including children – to run painful and invasive experiments. More modern examples are not so easy to identify as unethical, however. While amputating a leg to develop methods to deal with fractures and war wounds is obviously unethical, harvesting cells to develop a vaccine is not so clear cut, as the disadvantage to the patient is hard to identify. Coming from the various Nazi testing and especially the Nuremberg testing and trials, another code of ethics was developed, called the Nuremberg Code.

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.

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

Rebecca Skloot the author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks became obsessed with learning the story behind Henrietta Lacks when hearing about her and her cells in a college biology class. She wanted to know more and find out who this woman was and why her cells were so important to science because there was little known about her. Henrietta Lacks was an African American woman whose cancer cells were the first ever immortal cell line in science. Skloot decides to tell their story but when she begins to dig and research she realizes that the family is very standoffish and does not like the idea of sharing information with reporters therefore it was very difficult to connect with them and gather more information about Henrietta.

However, the consent of subjects is enforced by the respect for the individuals used in research and the bioethicists that police peer-reviewed articles. A small hope has sprung forth from possible enforceable regulations that would require permission for the use of all human blood and tissue used in research. This has been proposed by the federal government. Sadly, neither the current standing nor the possible future of required consent is very well known in the general population. The lack of concern when it comes to these issues by the general population can be attributed to a simple problem, lack of knowledge.

The most difficult aspect of scientific study isn’t always the study of science itself, but making sure that the scientific research conducted and/or practiced is within the range of what is ethically and socially acceptable. Certain scientific subjects tend to blur this line of progress versus ethics, such as stem cell research and gene modification. But how can one manage to keep both sides of the quandary satisfied? Such is the case with Henrietta Lacks and her “immortal” cells, known as the HeLa cell line, and how they were taken from her without her consent. The controversy surrounding Lacks’ cells enters morally grey territory, where there is no objectively correct side, and well-made

There are many ethical issues in the healthcare field. These issues range from insurance coverage, senior care, childhood immunizations, beneficence, abortion, medicinal marijuana, honesty and medical research (Fritzsche, D., 2004). Today we will discuss the ethical concerns in only one aspect of heath care and that topic is research (Benatar, S., 2000). Medical research is necessary in order to make strides in health care, introduce new medications, to discover new symptoms and disorders and to test new treatment options for current medical problems. Students of medicine, universities and pharmaceutical companies conduct this research primarily. Much of this research is time consuming and costly, therefore obtaining funding is not

The society has evolved over the decades. Medical advances, greater technologies, better understanding of the world around us, the sky is the limit! The progression of a society is astounding from where it was just twenty years ago. One is able to do things that the forefathers would have never dreamed! Science has discovered ways to travel to the moon and back, reach some of the deepest depths of the oceans and discover new species, and drive hybrid cars. The achievements of today’s society have reached a new high; however, with great achievement comes great questions of ethics.

Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Every year, millions of animals suffer through painful and unnecessary tests. Animals in laboratories all over the world live lives of deprivation, pain, isolation, and torture. Even though vast studies show that animal experimentation often lacks validity, leading to harmful human reactions, we still continue to use this method of experimentation, while many other less-expensive and more beneficial alternatives exist. Going beyond the issue of animal experimentation being morally wrong, this form of research is also hindering medical progress. Although the use of animals in laboratories is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans, people mistakenly believe that this immoral and unscientific method of experimentation is

Many things can contribute to what you think is morally right or wrong. Religion, for example, may create a barrier on to what extent you do something. Some religions set rules, or guidelines on which they limit what people do. Cultures, as well, contribute to people’s decisions. Many times our values and ethics disagree with different people who hold different

In the eighth grade, I was a member of a service board that raised and donated money to local charities. Over the sweet salinity of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, we set out to determine which causes were most worthy of our piles of lustrous pennies. Among other charities, we considered a research hospital. I liked its goals, but I had one issue with giving it money: when I asked the representative whether or not the hospital experimented on animals, she said yes. I was faced for the first time with a reality of biomedical research: that often, saving human lives comes at the expense of animal lives. In the context of curing cancer, behaviors that I had once deemed categorically corrupt now seemed slightly more justifiable, and I was forced to consider my binary ethics in shades of grey. Although my beliefs did not change at the time, the mere act of questioning this notion would have deep