Human Experimentation Is Only Moral With Informed Consent

In their article, “The Concept of Informed Consent,” Faden and Beauchamp give two varying definitions of informed consent, namely sense one and sense two. Sense one is defined as autonomous authorization, meaning that the patient or subject agrees and then gives authority to move forward with a proposal (Vaughn 191). The authors give four conditions that have to be met for informed consent to be recognized: the patient has to understand the information presented to her, there should be no manipulation or coercion, and she has to intentionally give her authorization (Vaughn 191). Faden and Beauchamp also note that the fourth condition, where the patient gives her authorization, is pivotal in this sense since it differentiates autonomous authorization

The central ethical conflicts of the Clara’s case are several infringements committed regarding human rights in human experimentation. According to the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics [APA] (2010) experiments such as Clara would have violated several sections from standard 8: 8.01 (obtaining institutional approval), 8.02 (participants’ informed consent), 8.04 (client/patient, student, and subordinate respect to continue in research), 8.07 (deception in research), and 8.09 (humane care). Section 8.01 indicates that researchers must obtain approval prior

Ethics, in our society, are the moral principles that govern our behavior, dictating what is right from wrong. The specifics of ethics changes as values in our society change and evolve. This occurs in Rebecca Skloots book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. One major reoccurring theme in the book is the lack of informed consent and autonomy. Fortunately, now there are safeguards which protect human rights in regard to health care and research. The Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, now part of the Department of Health and Human Services, created The Belmont Report, which is one such safeguard establishing principles for all human research (USDHHS, 1979). This paper will discuss the ethical issue of informed consent within The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the disregard to parts of the Belmont Report, as well as compare the role of the nurse in charge of Henrietta’s care versus the standards of care set for modern nurses.

Many people are unaware of the vile human experiments the United States government has condoned. Innocent men and women, became victims of these experiments without their consent or knowledge. These people were soldiers, husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers, who were maltreated and even murdered. It is vital for not only citizens of the United States of America to be aware of how their government tortured its own citizens, but also people around the world from every country there is. Being aware and educated about the revolting history of any country can prevent the unethical governmental practices from ever occurring again. There are various human experiments dating back to the 1930’s that the US government conducted which led to the demise of innocent people, caused some of the specimens involved to become mentally impaired, and when the government 's nefarious acts became exposed higher authorities apologized.

The informed consent were not obtained for the participants to engage in the experiment at their own free will, instead they were deceived and made to belief that they were benefitting, such experiment which has become widely known

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

Throughout history there are many examples of humans conducting experiments on other humans. Over the years human experimentation has greatly advanced the knowledge of human physiology and psychology, leading to better treatments for ailments both physical and mental as well as a better overall understanding of the human constitution. Despite all of the good which human experimentation has done for the human race there have been times when experimenters have taken human experimentation past the bounds of morality. This unethical human experimentation is most often caused when the experimenters are, in some way, able to justify their experiments.

Joaquin Phoenix believes “It takes noting away from a human to be kind to an animal.” There is nothing kind about animal experimentation. Each year, there are “over 25 million animals used in biomedical experimentations, product and cosmetic testing, and science education in the United States” (Liou). Animal Experimentation should be illegal because the treatment of these animals is inhumane, unreliable, and immoral.

Consent vs blinding the subject of studies can be a touchy subject but if you know that the people who are involved in the study are not harmed or may results in death, you should still be informed the people involved in the study. Consent or blind people still need to know what they are asked to do and take. According to GCU HTL 540 Lecture 8 (2010), “The purpose of an IRB is to ensure effective, well-designed research that protects subjects from harm. The IRB reviews and must approve study designs, consents to be signed by subjects, and the processes and treatment in which subjects will participate and receive as part of the study. This must happen prior to initiation of the study.” (para 6, sentence 3). So, yes people should be informed

Today, Millions of animals across the globe are being used in labs as a way to experiment and test things such as cosmetics and drugs while also being used for biology lessons, medical training and sometimes just curiosity-driven experimentations. Many would say these test are infringing on the “animal 's right”.we will look at immanuel kant with his theory of the categorical imperative and other philosophers such as aristotle and will demonstrate how they have had a large impact on how we see these animals rights today and how they play a role in whether or not animal testing is morally the right thing to do.experimentations on animals has been done throughout almost all of in history and in some way or another contributed to most nearly every medical breakthrough. however , where do we draw the line between testing to further progress knowledge and scientific studies and infringing on the animals rights? In addition how far are we willing to go with “animal rights”? In order to truly get get a better understanding to answer these questions, i 'm going to dive deeper into both the pros and cons of the use of animals in scientific experiments and see if there are any proven alternatives that could be used to better science and the rights of all animals.

“Respect for human beings involves giving due scope to peoples capacity to make their own decisions. In the research context, this normally requires that participation be the result of a choice made by the participants” (NHMR, 2007, p.3).  Freegard 2012 (p.60), states that “respecting the rights of others,” includes a responsibility for Health professionals “to let others know about their rights” and that this forms the basis of an informed consent.

There should be guidelines to human experimentation. Human experimentation should only be performed on consenting adults that understand what is going to happen. In other words, the doctors should get informed consent from their patients. There have been many unethical human experimental trials performed on people that had no idea what was happening to them. This is unethical and very dangerous for the people. There also have been different guidelines and codes for human experimentation, such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Denis Diderot once said, “There are three principal means of acquiring knowledge... observation of nature, reflection, and experimentation. Observation collects facts; reflection combines them; experimentation verifies the result of that combination.” Denis Diderot discusses the overall way to obtain information. When wanting to know statistics, numerous experiments need to be performed in order to provide accurate results. Through the abundant of experiments performed, human experimentation is one of those tests. Upon hearing the words “human experimentation,” individuals automatically assume grotesque, immoral, and unethical tests being conducted on people. However, this is untrue because experimenting on humans is beneficial to the citizens

Medical experimenting should go as far as everyone involved feels that it should go. For example, the patients and their family’s views, and the doctor and hospitals views are the critical opinions on what is ethical or unethical. Every medical condition and disease are different, so it is hard to justify exactly how far medical experimentation should go. Experimenting should take place when all parties consent, and there is a possibility that the testing could produce positive outcomes for the specific patient, or for patients in the future. The patient has rights to control their care. If the patient is unable to give consent, then their family members or advanced directives should be able to make medical decisions without feeling pressured

I am the opposition and I am against human experimentation.I am against human experimentation because it harms people.I say this because multiple people have been murdered by these experiments for over the past 100 years.In the experimentation people have been saved,but the experiment could have had a sin affect that affected the person. The sin affect could then go extremely wrong,and could lead that person to death.