Thursday, May 2, 2019
Ideological conflicts in medical research Essay
Ideological conflicts in medical research - Essay ExampleThis paper begins with the purpose of medical researches that is to invent new medicines for addressing ailments. If such medicines are tried and true in animals, we whitethorn fail to accurately predict the exact repercussions of such medicines on homosexual beings. It is non sure that all medicines that work on animals should work on human beings. Moreover, a positive ratio of this is that it reduces the wrong treatment of animals in the name of medical research. For, human beings and other animals have equal immensity in this world. Therefore, an experiment for the betterment of his race must be d hotshot on himself. One may say that all experimentations carried on in medical field intend the common good of the mankind and hence there is no problem in taking a few as the fashion to reach the end. However, humanitarians are always against treating man as means. The exponents who argue that man must save be treated a s an end may put forward the following arguments. If a soul participates in a new drug application trial, his primary reason can be that he gets an opportunity to get extra money. He believes that the fasten forget do his/her part well and no trauma will be caused to him. In fact, if that person meets with any serious disaster during the trial, no one will be responsible since the individual has taken the decision at his own discretion. Therefore, it is not ethical to position human beings for such dangerous experiments. The reason lies with the fact that a physician always tries to save ones life by all means whereas, a researcher tries to generate knowledge experimenting with the patients. (Boomgaarden & Louhiala, 2003, p. 101). Evidently, the reports life is put in danger. At this juncture, the ethical perception of a researcher is plenty in dispute. For, the researcher will not act as a physician but only a researcher and nobody will be found responsible for a damage cau sed to the human life underwent experimentation (ibid). In addition, since man is superior to all, his security and wellbeing must be prone prime consideration. If samples of trial medicines are first tested on animals there is a privilege of identifying the possible bad effects on man. Hence, potential risks against the subjects can be eliminated that way. In the same way, it is highly unethical to use captivated person, mentally retarded persons and persons who are regarded as less worthy as subjects without their consent. For example, the national socialist experiments conducted in Concentration Camps during Second World War (Standler, 2000). It must be noted that, as an individual, the doctor cannot take any measure or try any course of action without the assent of the person captivated or compelled to undergo experimentation. Moreover, due to the application of the untested medicines the survivor is likely to give in for other kinds of ailments though he is not directly affec ted by the experiment shortly (ibid). On the other hand, it is not always possible to use man as end due to a number of constraints. Therefore, according to this opinion, man must be used as means as well. such(prenominal) trials are usually conducted on relatively small number of healthy volunteers.