Beecher's Argument Essay: The Ethics Of Human Experimentation

Introduction:

Human experimentation has been a contentious issue for a long time, and philosophers have been engaged in a debate on its moral permissibility. Some argue that it can be morally right if appropriate changes can be made, while others claim that it is inherently wrong and, therefore, will always be morally impermissible. This paper aims to explore the debate between two philosophers, Beecher and Hellman, who hold different views on human experimentation.

Beecher's Argument

Beecher's argument is that human experimentation can be morally right if it is carried out in a way that minimizes harm to participants. He argues that experiments should be designed to benefit humanity, and the risks involved should be outweighed by the potential

He asserts that human experimentation has contributed significantly to medical knowledge, and it is therefore essential to continue with research in this area. Beecher also emphasizes the importance of informed consent, which he claims is crucial in ensuring that participants understand the risks involved and give their consent voluntarily.

One of the main strengths of Beecher's argument is that he recognizes the potential benefits of human experimentation. He argues that the risks involved should be minimized, but this should not deter researchers from carrying out experiments that can benefit humanity. Beecher also acknowledges the importance of informed consent, which is crucial in ensuring that participants understand the risks involved and give their consent voluntarily.

Hellman's

Beecher argues that it can be morally right if the necessary changes are made, while Hellman contends that it is inherently wrong and can never be morally justified.

One way to compare the arguments of Beecher and Hellman is to examine their views on the value of human life. Beecher's argument is based on the assumption that human life has inherent value, but this value can be balanced against other important values, such as the advancement of medical knowledge. Hellman, on the other hand, argues that human life has absolute value, and it cannot be weighed against any other value, no matter how important.

Another way to compare the arguments of Beecher and Hellman is to examine their views on the role of research in medical practice. Beecher argues that research is an essential component of medical practice, and it can help improve patient care and outcomes. Hellman, however, contends that research should be subordinated to the principle of patient-centered care, which emphasizes the importance of respecting the autonomy and dignity of patients.