Vincanne Adams Case Study Summary

in her article “The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World”, stating that it is only ethical to use placebo-controlled studies “when there is no known effective treatment” (Angell, 847). The current protocol consists of a lengthy treatment with costly drugs, but Angell argues that despite the logistics, beneficence still applies, and the available treatment should be the standard to which all others is measured against. There is also the guiding of issue of not only ensuring that subjects are not treated as just a minimal part of the ultimate goal, but ensuring that the subjects' well-beings be the primary concern for researchers as well. Yet, the available treatment is being withheld, leaving the placebo-controlled group without any treatment at all.

Ethics is a strongly culturally linked area of philosophy interrelated with what is considered acceptable human conduct. There are two branches of ethics; medical ethics and bioethics. The moral conduct and principles which govern practices of medical and health professionals falls under medical ethics, whereas in biomedicine and the health sciences theorised developments in the study of social and moral issues is considered bioethics(1). There are two philosophical principles within the conduction of health care research these are deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (2). Utilitarianism states that the most benefit

An example of when not communicating can cause health issues, a worker does an experiment that is hazardous, so protective clothing is necessary, so that they do not get exposed to the chemical, the worker does not inform their college that they are doing and must were protective clothing when entering the lab, they do not know this so they enter the lab and are exposed to

The Helsinki declaration was founded in 1964 and since here they have been updating principles of good practice in this kinds of experiments. They say, “Welfare of animals used for research must be respected”. Since here the ethical views for non-humans subjects started. Later on the APA gave instructions to determine whether an experiments on animals is acceptable or not. For example animal research should not harm the animal or distress it on any way. If the researchers don’t follow this code, they wont be allowed to keep on with the experiment.

“Errors in communication give rise to substantial clinical morbidity and mortality (Riesenberg, Leitzsch, & Cunningham, 2010).” As a result, the Joint Commission has identified effective communication as one of its National Patient Safety Goals (Dunsford, 2009).

In this paper, I will focus on the ethical issues of informed consent and the cultural mindsets of doctors and scientists during this time period.

Obtaining an informed consent is a vital part of current health care. This document lists out several key pieces of information for both the patient, Provider, and the ancillary staff that also access the document during the procedure process. However, obtaining informed consent has not always been the practice norm and in research, informed consent carries different specifications.

A physician who does not provide this to his/her patient may be liable for battery or negligence in the light of the doctrine of informed consent (Thorton 2000). As patients are entitled to this information, physicians possess a duty to disclose regarding risks and hazards, while performing the procedure or treatment as agreed with the patient. If the doctrine of informed consent did not exist, physicians would be able to perform medical treatments, procedures, without a patient’s consent or full knowledge of the perils of healthcare. In addition, healthcare demands trust which is necessary between patients and physicians in order to deliver beneficial health outcomes. If the doctrine of informed consent is not performed between the patient and physician, then trust diminishes resulting in poor health outcomes (Roach 2014). An example of deliberate harm due to uninformed consent exist in the research conducted in the Tuskegee experiment, where treatment was withheld and subjects were not informed of their illness or available treatments (CDC 2013) resulting in poor health and

That was 1954. In 1964 The Helsinki agreement was created. In the USA this is now called the Common Rule, and it guides medical research. It has been revised 6 times since 1964 because ethical problems keep showing up. The rules of the Helsinki agreement are a guideline for conducting

Describe how informed consent is undertaken by members of your profession, and which ethical considerations are included

The development of programs, like the Institutional Review Board, are essential in making sure that the guidelines are followed. I think it is important to maintain boundaries when it comes to what research can and cannot be done using human subjects. The diversity of the IRB is necessary make sure the experiments that are being approved are in the best interest of both the subjects and the scientists pursuing

161) A subject in a clinical research trial experiences a serious, unanticipated adverse drug experience. How should the investigator proceed after the discovery of the adverse event occurrence?

What cultural considerations must you think about? (Did the group describe cultural considerations relevant to treating the particular patient?) (3 points)

The study selected by this author centers around ethical and oversight issues concerning standard of care interventions received by participants in research studies. So as to address recently arisen concerns regarding key aspects of regulation and oversight of standard of care interventions executed during trials, the office for human research protections (OHRP) solicited comments from experts on what has been termed as “Draft Guidance” (Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2015, pp. 1-3).

There are three basic principles to consider when evaluating the ethics of a study: 1) respect for persons, 2) beneficence, and 3) justice (Houser, J., 2012, pg. 54-56). To apply these