A 35-year-old man named Paul, who has a supportive wife and two adventurous kids, has been diagnosed with a very severe case of bone cancer for 1 year now. Since this type of cancer is so severe, chemotherapy is starting to not work as well. Paul’s oncologist unfortunately had to suggest a final option for Paul to try which was a clinical research trial. Clinical research trials are experimental studies that deem whether or not a medical drug, treatment, surgery, or device is safe and beneficial for humans to use ("National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute"). As explained in Marcia Angell’s Article, “The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World”, the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Health Organization (WHO) provides a guideline …show more content…
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
Third world countries and underdeveloped nations have become the new proverbial Petri dish of experimentation and offer particular conditions which researchers would never be able to find in their home countries. This only serves to highlight the problem that inherently faces all research studies, the ethical debate in regards to the protection and rights of their subjects. Is it feasible to expect the same standards to apply in certain countries where an economical imbalance between what is possible and what is not can be the largest hurdle to overcome? These are key issues examined in the New England Journal of Medicine by author Marcia Angell, M.D., and co-authors Harold Varmus, M.D. and David Satcher, M.D. in their respective articles
In the field of medicine, clinical trials are known to be a reliable source of information. Although ethical issues do arise, to which the theory of equipoise was proposed, which states that there should be a balance of forces of interests (Weijer et al., 95). There are two types of equipoise; clinical and theoretical. Clinical equipoise is the assignment of multiple treatments to be tested on patients with the disagreement in the medical community in which medical professionals have differing views that one treatment is better than the others (Weijer et al., pg. 97). Theoretical equipoise is between a physician and researcher and the belief that the risks and benefits of the treatments are in perfect balance (Wiejer et al., 96). The differing factor of the two, being that clinical equipoise focuses on the difference in views of certain treatments involving much of the medical community to form an insightful conclusion on the procedure to which the evidence supporting each treatment does not have to be balanced, whereas theoretical equipoise focuses on the equal amount of risks and benefits within each treatment (Weijer et al., 97). With that being said I personally believe researchers must be in a state of clinical equipoise to run morally acceptable clinical trials.
Jennifer, I fully agree with your statement that “ethics and evidence-based practice are related in that we as nurses, as well as other healthcare professionals, need to promote good and always focus on the well-being of the patient in every aspect of delivery of care”. Not too long ago we had a 50-year-old patient who was admitted with low blood pressure and needed to be on pressors. On the second day of admission the patient suffered a stroke, with paralysis to one side of his body. The patient complained of chest pains to which cardiac enzymes were ordered. The first set was normal, the second set of cardiac enzymes showed his troponin was elevated to which the doctor was paged. He was not worried about it he said, but the nurse on
The community clinic has been a great experience to test our abilities and skills for the future as doctors of physical therapy. This opportunity helps students to get to know the strengths and weaknesses in real situations with patients. The community clinic is truly helpful and gives us, students, the chance of experiencing what our future jobs as physical therapy doctors will be like. The combination of practice, observation and feedback from classmates, professors and third year mentors gives a considerable amount of useful knowledge.
The ethical issue that is currently making me rethink my actions is “standard lll professional competence and integrity 3.9 gifts” (American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, 2001). One of my clients has me rethinking my actions in this ethical dilemma. This issue started about a month ago when we were in session, she informed me that she has an anxiety problem. I asked her what does do when she has these problems. My client informed me that she used to listen to a relaxation cd, but she lost it. My client told me that the music was sounds of raindrops and thunder.
1. When Hellman and Hellman describe researchers participating in randomized controlled clinical trials as physician-scientists; they use that term to express the tension between the two titles (pg. 260). As a physician, the researcher is obligated to act in the best interest of the patient (pg. 260). The physician must not treat the patient as a means only (pg. 260). This means that the physician can’t just use the subject to further research. Physicians must give the subject the best treatment possible. If we refer to Kant, a physician’s role is pretty much just like Kant’s ethical view. A physician must view their subject as valuable. They also must treat their subject with respect. The other side of the researcher is scientists. As a scientist, the researcher is focused with benefitting humanity (pg. 260). The scientist must answer questions so that the public can be given the proper answers safely and efficiently (pg. 260). Unlike the physician, the scientist isn’t
Ethical issues in the healthcare field ARISE from different perspectives of individuals rights and clinical research. There have been many advances in technology for the treatment of cancer that come from clinical research have CREATED many new ethical problems. Bone marrow transplantation is a major case where research has the potential benefit, but RESOURCES provide this life-saving option are scarce. Bone marrow is a spongy type tissue inside some of the bones in the body, which includes the thigh and hip bones. A bone marrow contains immature cells, called stem cells. There are two types of bone marrow there is yellow bone marrow which is a fatty tissue and red bone marrow, known as myeloid tissue. Yellow bone marrow CONTAINS mesenchymal stem cells
Consent is a cornerstone of human research ethics and in doctor-patient relationships. The need to obtain a patient’s full consent prior to participating in a clinical trial of investigational products is increasingly heralded as an ethical panacea counteracting the potential danger of paternalistic and autocratic practices (Corrigan 2003).
I would like to begin my argument by noting that in the United States strict regulations are in place to protect clinical trial participants and to prevent harmful and potentially disastrous clinical trial results. Before participating in a trial all trial participants are given an informed consent form that presents the key facts of the study; all participants also maintain the right to withdraw from the study at any time. According to the National Institute of Health “if researchers learn that a treatment harms you, you'll be removed from the study (NHLBI).” I am not saying that all patients are aware of their rights, or that all clinical trials abide by the rules, but that in general American federal law heavily protects clinical trial participants. However America’s stringent drug safeguards do not exist everywhere, furthermore in America and elsewhere pharmaceuticals are a highly profitable field, companies can find loopholes in regulations to push drugs onto the market faster often at the patient’s risk. This essay will focus mainly on the regulations
Ethical dilemma is a problem without satisfactory resolution.Nurses face ethical dilemmas on a daily basis regardless of where they work., Nurses are faced with ethical decisions that can impact them and their patients. There is no solution to an ethical dilemma.The word ethics is originate from the Greek word ‘character’. Nurses are using ethical concepts in during patients care. Ethical concepts include providing care which is good, correct, and rational. Ethical nursing care is based upon rational science and decision making. The most important concepts which are using in nursing professional are respect for patient autonomy, the duty to act with beneficence; no maleficence; and justice.When nurses faced abortion,she believe abortion is
In the fourth century B.C., the renowned Greek physician Hippocrates created the Hippocritical Oath. This oath, a code of conduct followed by physicians from the very beginnings of medical history, proclaims that one must do no harm to their patients or subjects. It also requires that the person swearing this oath leads an “exemplary personal and professional life” (Briticanna, 2008). Nowhere in this oath does Hippocrates even insinuate that a doctor cannot perform experiments on a human being, nor does he deem it unethical. However, a handful of “doctors” have crossed the fine line that distinguishes the difference between ethical and unethical human medical experimentation.
The vast majority of ethical dilemmas regarding research and the involvement of human participants is associated with concerns that are decidedly monetary in nature. Of course, the most fundamental concerns for any such research would be to protect the health and the welfare of those human participants (Callahan 1998). This statement becomes particularly true when such a population group pooled for research includes specialty subjects such as elderly people, pregnant women, and subsets that may be considered especially vulnerable. Although this consideration is widely viewed as something of a foregone conclusion concerning the subject of ethical dilemmas in research, it is actually an integral component of many of the pecuniary considerations regarding the ethics of human research. One of the principle questions of ethics in research is whether or not the information gained from human participants can be considered valid, when such participants are being paid or compensated in some way that could, conceivably, affect the results of whatever research is performed. Another ethical concern is raised by the efficacy and veracity of Institutional Review Boards who approve or validate the techniques of human research. Situations may very well arise in which members of those review boards have conflicts of interests with their professional duties as board members and the results of certain types of research.
Nuremberg Code is a set of 10 sophisticate principles regarding ethical clinical research on human being (Grodin, 1994). It is mainly for protection of subjects’ human right (Shuster, 1997), such as compulsory of informed consent and the equal authority of subjects as the physician-researcher to end the experiment.
Polio. Smallpox. Yellow Fever. All three of these diseases have been eradicated in America. How? Thanks to medical research, an antidote was found for each of these diseases. There is no question that medical research is important to the medical world. However, could countries do without extensive focus on medical research? America spends the most on healthcare and medical research out of any other country yet their life expectancy is not even close to being the highest. On top of its inefficiency in America, drug trials and animal testing have been scrutinized for being inhumane. Nevertheless, medical research is necessary to the improvement to health care everywhere, but there are improvements that can be made to increase its
I prefer to buy from a physical store rather than an online site because there might be a chance where the product is cheaper in physical stores.