"Stanford v. Kentucky." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-5765. Accessed 16 Apr.
There are over 100 million animals harmed in US research labs every year. Ninety- two percent of the tests conducted on animals do not actually work when used on people (animal testing). Why use animals at all when researchers can just use humans...incarsaterated humans. In the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” researchers used HeLa cells on men in prison to test the effects of the cells in the human body. Chester Southam put an ad in the Ohio State Penitentiary newsletter for twenty-five volunteers for HeLa cells research.
“In 1999, president Clinton’s National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) issued a report saying that federal oversight of tissue research is “inadequate” and “ambiguous”. It recommended specific changes that would ensure patients’ rights to control how their tissues were being used.” (page 327). Unfortunately, the changes were never made and scientists still have the ability to conduct research on one’s tissues without consent. The reason for why the changes were nullified remain unknown even to Wayne Grody an individual “who was in thick of the debate in the nineties, (for) why the congressional recommendations and NBAC report seemed to have vanished.”.
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot tells the story of Henrietta Lacks, her family, and researchers who have exploited her cell line under the name of advance in medical research. In 1951, when Henrietta Lacks was treated for cervical cancer at John’s Hopkin hospital, a physician collected her cervical cancer cells and handed to a researcher without proper process of informed consent. In a research lab, her cancer cells were harvested and disseminated to other labs. Henrietta’s cancer cells become the first immortal human cell line and became widely used for scientific research. When her cell lines were sold by billions throughout the entire country and HeLa cells became popular research tools in the scientific community,
Many of the most successful of these were Oklahoma based. Ada Sipuel’s case is a very and prominent one of these. Ada sued the Oklahoma Board of Regents for
The job of the “Commission was to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and to develop guidelines which should be followed to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles.” (The National Commission for the Protection of Human
One of the most fundamental trust relationships is between a patient and their doctor. Physicians have supposedly earned their trustworthy title because of their extended education and desire to help others. However, this perception is being shattered by physicians violating patients’ trust by not providing all the information needed for making a responsible decision for a person’s health and performing unimaginable procedures. “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” provides multiple examples of the unethical practice of doctors. When scientists do not recognize their subjects as human beings and their relationship results in an unbalanced power dynamic, their advantageous position often leads to the unethical treatments of subjects, especially
In this case, the informed consent of the subjects was not fully attained as researchers used misinformation to encourage participation in otherwise detrimental studies. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, author Rebecca Skloot references a similar case in which a researcher named Chester Southam injected prisoners with cancer cells. Like researchers in the Tuskegee experiments, Southam did not thoroughly explain his research “[as] patients might have refused to participate in his study if they’d known what he was injecting” (Skloot 13). In addition to promoting ethical research, informed consent strengthens the trust between researchers and donors. When researchers seek permission before experimenting on biospecimen, they remain trustable figures to donors.
During the 1960s patients were often untold they were being used for research. “Like many doctors of this era TeLinde often used patients from the public wards for research without their knowledge.” (Skloot, 2010, p. 29). The doctors believed that since the patients were being treated for free they had the right to use them as subjects in research. However in today’s society while informed consent is a common practice there are still injustices where patient’s samples are being bought and sold without their knowledge.
Which is the process to use any part of someone’s body. Even though it was something that help a lot of people it was done unethical. In conclusion to the ethical theories, the Utilitarianism and deontology is on two different sides of the fence. While one is applauding the doctor and believe that it is ethical, the other believes following the rules and believes that it is unethical. Based on the story and the time frame, this experiment was ethical and the right thing to
Example (R v Allen) (1872)
Consent is patients’ rights because they have right to know what is happening to their life which is fundamental value in professional practice (Department of Health (DH), 2001). Dougherty and Lister (2015) state that consent is a patient’s rights to refuse or to accept a treatment. However, Dimond (2010) said that consent is a voluntarily decision which can be given orally, verbally, written or implied for example if you ask a patient to take their blood pressure and they offer their arm. Eyal (2012) also states that consent promote trust in medical procedures that people may seek and comply with medical advice and participate in medical research. Bok (2013) argues that there are problems with the trust-promoting as many patients give consent despite being to some extent distrustful.
In the most recent case of Fisher vs. University of Texas,
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
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott [2013] Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission)
