Group Soft Paternalism Essay

Grady, C. (2010). Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA, 304(10), 1122-1123. Retrieved from http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=186530

The concept of paternalism involves the notion that one person, generally a person in a position of authority, has the right to intervene and override the autonomy of another person. In terms of historical context, medicine is one area in which paternalism has occurred frequently. Throughout the ages, physicians and doctors have been placed in a position of authority in which they acted upon the bodies of their patients without those patients’ full knowledge or understanding. However, there has been a distinct shift in modern times regarding paternalism. With the publication of The Silent World of Doctor and Patient, Jay Katz advocated for a new attention to be given to the autonomous control of the patient. Katz noted that historically speaking,

In this case study, there were a few incidents of violations of ethics. In 1998, Callahan recommends that researchers should follow the three ethical issues: Autonomy, beneficence, and human justice. Autonomy is the first ethical principle that a researcher should respect the participate and make sure that informed consent has been given. The participates of this study was not aware the risk or what the study was about and actually could not give consent legally because they were minors. Johnson and Tudor did not give full disclosure of this research to the minors, teachers, or matrons at the orphanage. Beneficence is the second ethical principle; the researcher should maximize

This discussion led to Dr. Jeziorowski’s dialogue on the ethics of the institutionalized review board (IRB). The role of the IRB is to investigate and review proposals submitted for human research before experimentation is conducted. Dr. Jeziorowski signified how the IRB strongly upholds the principles of dignity, respect, justice, and benevolence. The committee’s job involves looking at aspects investigators may have overlooked or what researchers are unintentionally aware of that may violate human ethics. They attempt to make suggestions on how to improve research without actually turning down any proposals.

In his essay, The Refutation of Medical Paternalism, Alan Goldman states his argument against a strong doctor-patient role differentiation, in which the doctor may act against a patients’ immediate will in order to carry treatment in the patients’ best interest. Goldman frames his entire argument around the single assumption that a person’s freedom to decide his future is the most important and fundamental right as he claims “the autonomous individual is the source of those other goods he enjoys, and so is not to be sacrificed for the sake of them.”[1] He claims that the majority of people would agree that they are the best judges of their own self-interest

When the ethics of the research being done are heavily violated,

The publishing of the book, Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, not only brought light to an incredible story but also to the incredible need for change in legislation and governing bodies within the research system. Since its release in 2010, there have been various policy introductions coming from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Among one of the greatest is titled, “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators.”

Science, medicine, and psychology are powerful tools capable of increasing human understanding of the world, curing diseases, or assisting individuals in living more fulfilling lives. The potential for good is drastic; however, a potential for hurt exists as well. Although history is full of stories documenting the positives of research, events of scientific research hurting individuals still haunt history. These events, including the Holocaust and the Tuskegee experiments, demonstrate instances where scientific research on human beings is clearly unethical and damaging. Due to horrific events such as these, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research published the Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, or Belmont Report, in 1979.

Another clear cause of the unethical study behaviour lies in the freedom given to the scientists. The researchers

The three Belmont Principles (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice) were violated during the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. For example, the researchers violated the respect for person’s principle, because roughly 600 African-American men were recruited without voluntary informed consent. The researchers also did not ensure that participants understood that enrolling in the research is voluntary and that they are free to withdrawn from the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. The men were pressured to participate due to implied threats (coercion) and excessive compensation (undue influence). The beneficence principle was likewise violated by the Tuskegee Study in that the researchers did not obliged to give forethought

The first ethical principle stated by the Belmont Report is respect for persons. “Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection” (The Belmont Report). The researcher must respect the subjects decisions and be obliged to allow them to take part of the experiment voluntarily. The second

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

Pressure group is defined as a non-profit and usually voluntary organization whose member have a common cause for which they seek to influence political or corporate decision makers to achieve a declared objective but not to elected candidates to office. They can also be described as ‘interest groups’, ‘lobby groups’ or ‘protest groups’. The aim of all pressure groups is to influence the people who actually have the power to make decisions. Pressure groups do not look for the power of political office but seek influence the decisions made by those who hold the political power such as cabinet. They are sometimes able to gather sufficient support to force government to amend or even scrap legislation. Pressure group direct

This revised/reorganized fifth edition of a classic exposition of a secular "principlist" approach to bioethics makes the text more accessible to readers who are not well versed in moral theory. The book addresses critiques of the approach as presented in earlier additions; new developments in theory; and new issues in research, medicine, and health care. The original framework containing four clusters of secular principles--respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice--is upheld as "the common morality" accepted by "all morally serious persons." Often referred to as "the Georgetown mantra" (after Georgetown's Kennedy Institute of

Everyday, biomedical researchers, ethicists, and government officials have to choose between sacrificing the lives of helpless individuals or innocent animals. Animal testing Is said to be a necessary evil, and without it medical advancement would be severely halted. Medical researchers claim medical progression is their duty to humanity. In order to do their job quickly, animal testing is a necessity. Opponents to medical researchers, animal rights activists argue it isn't humanities right to to take innocent animals lives. They push the medical field to find a better solution.