Jona's Definition Of Identification

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.

Researchers treat animals right because they use them to uncover cures and treatment that humans can use. Scientist Hollis Cline and Mar Sanchez stated, “that animals in research are treated “humanely and with dignity” (Garner, 2016). These two scientists reassured the reader that animals subjected to testing are treated with respect. They are not treated in bad testing conditions, which may harm the animals and manipulate the outcome of the test. In addition to these scientists claim, there are also laws protecting animals, such as “federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)” (ProCon, 2017). Treating these animals with dignity is correct by the researchers because the animal is sacrificing his/her freedom to the outside world so it can be experiment on to find medical treatments and cures for

These codes and guidelines can be condensed into 3 key areas, consent, benefice and justice. Informed consent is crucial to respecting research subject’s individuality and humanity and entails being informed, without coercion and legally be able to give consent for themselves or a dependent. Consent grows in complexity when research uses protected individuals, these include those who would be too easily persuaded to take part out of duress, such as prisoners, or are unable to understand all important information to prepare a true competent choice such as those who are mentally incapacitated or young kids. The Willowbrook hepatitis studies involved a particularly vulnerable population as not only were the subjects young institutionalized children between the ages of five to ten. Research should not directly target these protected populations as subjects when it is possible to have individuals capable of giving uncoerced and informed consent under the concept of justice. The Belmont code best describes justice as the equal distribution of benefits and burdens by five formulations; equal share, by individual need, by individual effort, by societal contribution and

The Belmont Report summarizes ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects. Three core principles are identified: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Three primary areas of application are also stated. They are informed consent, assessment of risks and benefits, and selection of subjects. According to Vollmer and Howard, the Belmont Report allows for a positive solution, which at times may be difficult to find,

Take Elliott Sharp for example, he pursued a career in freelance journalism and ended up making three dollars for an article here, fifty dollars for a weeks-worth of blogs there. He ended up needing to pick up supplemental jobs, and the most profitable one he found was doing medical research studies (Sharp, 2012). Elliott is not alone. Immigrants have been another group that have been targeted. They are especially vulnerable because many do not speak English or have little if any skills. Testing centers, especially for Phase I trials, are simply looking for healthy bodies. They are willing to provide translators and pay a “reasonable” amount of money to reimburse participants for their time (Smith, 2005). The large payouts and minimal requirements make drug trials very appealing. Those who fall into drug trial testing as a full-time job, become dependent on the manipulation of their body for an income. The University of Miami bioethicist Ken Goodman says that “the line between compensation and coercion [has become] a very fine line “(Smith, 2005). There comes a point when the need of the money negates the fact that they are consenting freely. Free consent is an essential part ensuring the ethicality of human subject research. Another issue that “career guinea pigs” present in relation to the Belmont reports in the area of application of general ethical human

One. The Belmont Report has failed to distinguish different sources including the kinds of vulnerability or to map particular protections to particular vulnerabilities (Rogers & Lange, 2013). This can be a problem because different kinds of vulnerability justify different responses. Nickel (2006) claims that there are two overlapping senses of vulnerability at work with the Belmont Report and in following human research ethics guidelines (p.2141). The first relates to the capacity to give informed consent, which the Belmont Report connects to the principle of respect for autonomy (Nickel, 2006). The second is the sense of vulnerability, as explained by Nickel, which relates to the Belmont Reports principles of justice meaning fairness (Nickel, 2006). The concern here is that vulnerable groups may be overrepresented in research for example, when the group lacks understanding or power to refuse participation (Rogers & Lange, 2013). This is explicit in the Belmont Report. Within the study, it was also explained that vulnerable groups may be excluded from research and thereby be excluded from the benefits of participation in clinical trials and subsequent access to treatments for which research evidence exists (Nickel, 2006). Research ethics guidelines that simply list groups likely to be vulnerable run a risk of stereotyping, and of the consequent harms of unjustified exclusion of research (Rogers & Lange, 2013, p. 2141).

People should not have research trials deprive them of their right to an informed consent, which hinders their abilities to decide on their choice to proceed with the treatment. Participants should also obtain the proper standard of care, despite their environment. Finally, there should be an ethical review board to prevent many partakers from becoming the victims of an exploitative research experiment. Titanji had a validated motive to take interest in Celine and fight for a call of action towards ethical medical

The pioneering spirit of research has answered countless questions, cured countless illnesses, and has prevented the loss of countless lives. Yet, although there is infinite potential in obtaining knowledge that could revolutionize the medical, social, and physiological world, research must not be conducted in a way that compromises the human subjects that are included in the study. For this discussion board, I will be discussing the case study “Bad Blood” while focusing on some of the ethical dilemmas that were involved in this specific case study.

They should be made aware of the validity and the quality of the research along with increasing their trust in medical research (Lecouturier, 2008). The research must be done ethically by educating the public about the value of the research, scientific validity, fair subject selection, and respect to the participants. It would be the duty of the hospitals who are involved in the research practices to develop protocols for making the patients aware that their medical information may sometimes be used for research by explaining the reasons and ensuring safeguards. The public must be made aware that only high quality professionals that can maintain privacy and confidentiality and who have respect for human beings will be allowed in handling sensitive and private patient information in the research studies. Having the public well informed of the purposes of research would give them a better understanding and a better likely hood of participating to the idea of research (Lecouturier,

Animal experimentation has been a controversial issue amongst scientists and animal activists since the early 1600s (Animal Testing - ProCon.org). When it comes to the topic of animal experimentation, most of us will readily agree that it’s necessary for medical research. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of morality. Whereas some are convinced that it’s unethical and scientifically unnecessary, others maintain that it’s needed for medical progress. My stance on the subject is animal experimentation is fundamental for medical advancement and cancer research.

     The Coalition of Americans for research Ethics states, "While we in no way dispute the fact that the ability to treat or heal suffering persons is a great good, we also recognize that not all methods of achieving a desired good are morally or legally justifiable. If this were not so, the medically accepted and legally required practices of informed consent and of seeking to do no harm to the patient could be ignored whenever some "greater good" seems achievable."

There have been many advancements in the medical field that have originated from human experimentation. Once the harsh natures of human experimentation reached the light of the press there were major pushes for reform. It has been noted that over the past few decades there have been over one thousand new rules, regulations and guidelines have been established to help protect patients (Gorski). In the United States specifically, there are rules to protect subjects during every process of federal or federally funded lab tests (Gorski). As well, most of the information and testing done is by professionals from universities that have specific roles and goals to accomplish. “Dr.E.Albert Reese, dean of the School of Medicine, said that the studying of diseases was not just addressing a medical need but proving hope. “That’s really what this is all about: hope for patients, hope for families, hope for physicians and scientists,” he said. “ Hope for the community and indeed the world (

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

Human experimentation has always been a highly controversial topic and practice. It deals with the use of human subjects taking part in tests for usually scientific and/or medical purposes. These tests are done for the end goal of furthering knowledge in certain scientific fields. While it does have its benefits, it has an immense negative stigma attached to it, and for understandable reasons.

Now, we move on to addressing the question: Why are so many people convinced that it is unethical to use data obtained through controversial means to further current medical research? In order to address this question, we must be able to consider that these people, ostensibly uncorrupted and possessing the moral high ground are the privileged few. Many of them will live here. And perhaps, it’s because so many live in nations like Australia, our beautiful and peaceful part of the planet, that this opinion is so strongly supported. Perhaps, our worry-free lifestyles on this