Ethical Issues in Pharmacy Research

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.

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.

There are four principles of ethics: Respect for autonomy, Beneficence, Non maleficence and Justice. This four principles offers comprehensive thought of the ethical issues in clinical settings (Beauchamp and Childress 2001 cited in UK Clinical ethics Network 2011).

This temptation happens when the research question, such as a cure for cancer, is extremely important and the answer could save lives. If the investigators cared more about the scientific or medical advancement than the well-being of their participants, they would cross a line that prohibits treating human subjects as a means to an end. When this line is crossed, there is little left to protect patients from a callous disregard of their welfare for the sake of research goals. Informed consent would not matter because of the unbalanced relationship between the knowledge and authority among the researcher and the subject. Approval by an institutional board, although it is important, can be subject to change in its responsiveness to patients’ interests when they conflict with the welfares of the researchers. Going back to Paul’s case, he agrees to enter a clinical trial which was suggested by his oncologist. The study, that Paul has agreed to enter, has claimed that this research team has created a new drug that may be on its way to cure cancer. Obviously to a father and husband, this trial looks very appealing. However, the researchers knowingly form two groups that will compare two treatments. What Paul doesn’t know, is that one of the treatments is better than the other. One group will receive this new drug and the other group will receive a placebo. Comparing this new treatment

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.

Principlism is a common practical approach to any bioethical dilemmas in medicine. According to Lewis Vaughn, there are five principles in Principlism that can provide a framework for reasoning through moral medical issues, which include autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, utility, and justice. Autonomy refers to the capacity of a person for making decisions for his/her own life. Nonmaleficence refers to doing absolutely no harm to others in any cases. Beneficence defines the right action to do is to bring good to others. Utility refers to always balancing out the harm by the good of an action. Justice refers to everyone should get an equal and fair treatment. The aforementioned five principles are supposed to provide some general guidelines for anyone who is

Additionally human medical research studies often targeted those who came to public teaching institutions desperately seeking free medical treatment and who generally looked up to doctors and experimenters as experts in the field who were there to help them. While this motivation may seem logical, it is often faulty as many human medical research studies throughout history demonstrate that the motivation of medical researches is often not the care of those currently suffering from a particular condition but the future returns on the cures or medical treatments that may be discovered during the study (McKie). As with many such unethical studies, the participants often do not give consent and are not informed of known dangers to the procedure, medications or lack of treatment. The use of individuals who are poor, uneducated, and lack medical insurance in combination with prestigious university research institutions and the white coated, well-educated researchers motivated by discoveries of cures on the scientific frontier results in abuses of individuals.

These principles have become widely used frameworks for ethical both in healthcare practice and also in clinical research. A few brief definitions; beneficence refers to the balancing of benefits of a treatment against the risks and acting in the way that most benefits the patient. Nonmaleficence is the avoidance of excessive harm. All treatments will have some risks and harm however minimal, the principle of nonmaleficence requires that the harm should not be disproportionate to the benefits of the treatment. Respect for patient autonomy is just as it states, that the patient should be respected as someone who can make reasoned, informed decisions of their own free will. Lastly, the principle of justice simply requires that risks and benefits be distributed fairly and that patients in similar situations should get similar treatments from their healthcare professionals. In another article, Macklin criticizes the four principles for not providing a useful way of solving bioethical issues, rather she believes that they provide a “sound and useful way of analysing moral dilemmas” (Macklin, 2003). I am inclined to agree with Macklin here, because it appears that

The research ethics, especially with the human subjects, is a very complex topic, and the completion of the certification opened my eyes on many aspects of research process. I learned how important it is to fully understand the research purpose and the methodology especially when selecting participants. I learned which populations are considered vulnerable, how to balance risk and potential benefits of research, and the importance of obtaining an informed, voluntary consent. I learned how important it is for researchers to ensure subjects confidentiality and privacy. Hardicre (2014) said that the research would be impossible without volunteers, and that the researchers “must act as patient advocates to ensure that every stage of the research

Describe the ethical implications of the researchers’ actions and the lack of medical treatment given to research participants in both studies

In the following essay I will be stating my opinion on issues surrounding medical research.

Research has always been an important aspect in developing any type of advanced healthcare system. Nevertheless, the use of humans makes these studies controversial. The controversy is over how every time human specimens are used their rights were not correctly protected, which caused their bodies to be mutilated. This misconduct is present in both the case dealing with Henrietta Lacks and the men that participated in the Tuskegee syphilis trials. When studies similar to these become public society being to have a scud view of research studies as well as healthcare overall. Resulting from this nurses need to practice proper ethics when working on their patients.

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

Similar to the Nuremberg Code, the Belmont Report summarizes ethical principles for human clinical research. The Belmont Report consists of three main principles including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (US Department of Health & Human Services, 2013). There are also three main areas of application including informed consent, assessment of risks and benefits, and selection of subjects. The first principle is respect for persons which includes treating individuals as autonomous agents and those with decreased autonomy are entitled to protection. This is applied through informed consent. As mentioned earlier informed consent is informing participants what to expect and contains three elements: information, comprehension, and

There are four basic ethical and bioethical principles that have a strong influence in the practice of medicine, predominantly medicine that deals with those who are dying. The first is beneficence, which directs the physician and health care worker to take positive actions, specifically by restoring health and relieving suffering (Bongard et al., 2008). Then there is nonmaleficence. Goldman and Schafer (2012) add that nonmaleficence is the idea that people should not be harmed or injured knowingly. The third ethical principle is autonomy,