The first article is entitled “of mice but not men: problems of randomized clinical trials,” is written by Samuel Hellman and Deborah S. Hellman discusses the issues of randomized medical testing and experiments on patients. The article describes the role of the personal physician and how the physician can take an ethical or unethical path of treating his/her patients. The relationship between the patient and physician is greatly emphasized because according to the article trust is very valuable in medicine especially when a patient’s life is at risk. A Kantian and a Utilitarian view of randomized clinical trials are debated but the authors clearly steers towards a Kantian point of view.
The author explains how randomized clinical trials put physicians in ethically intolerable positions of choosing between the good of the patient and that of society. A kantian argument is formed when the author explains how the physician has the duty to tell the truth and not use the patient as a mere means to satisfy the needs of a majority. The well being of the patient is far more important than that of the society when it comes to treatment by personal physician, the Author suggests that there should be alternatives to randomized clinical trials to deal with observer bias and patient selection. The overall message of the article stresses the importance of a patient’s well being over the well being of a society because the physician has the duty to help the patient improve his/her health.
Article two entitled “Clinical trials: are they ethical?” is written by Eugene Passamani discusses the importance of randomized clinical trials. Passamani rejects the argument that the physician-patient relationship demands that physicians recommend ...
... middle of paper ...
... saying randomized clinical trials is the “best” way of improving medicine.
Both articles give great example of proving their point but i favor article one. Although i do believe that randomized clinical trials is very useful but i don't agree to sacrificing one's health just to benefit a majority. I steer towards a kantian point of view because i believe a physician needs to be completely loyal to their patients and should not put their health in jeopardy. Randomized clinical trials have benefited medicine but they are a common place of corruption, by the exploitation of patients the medical industry can easily do more harm than good. Randomized clinical trials are a very broad idea therefore choosing to be for or against it is very difficult. Overall the kantian theory is what i personally thinks is the best way have a patient-physician relationship.
In the United States, the basis for ethical protection for human research subjects in clinical research trials are outlined by the Belmont Report developed in the late 1970’s. This document, published by the Nation Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, highlights three important basic principles that are to be considered when any clinical trial will involve human research subjects. They are; respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. (Chadwick & Gunn, 2004)
Since the inception of this mode of research, peoples’ perception of what constitutes moral behavior towards patients and specifically harvesting cells from patients has changed. Over time, other doctors would take cells from patients without patient consent and use them for research. Coming from this, people began to think about how ethical this was, and especially if the potential for scientific or medical advances outweighs the injustices imposed by the lack of obtaining patient consent. One could argue that in the area of ethical behavior and medical advances, it might be necessary and acceptable to take cells or tissue samples without patient consent. And even though these cells and the research of these cells might not affect the patient, what advantages and disadvantages could come from obtaining or not obtaining patient consent?
With the high degree of variations in health care, patients can be under or over treated or even treated with the wrong treatment for their illness. These unwarranted care techniques can be categorized into three different situations. The first category of unwarranted care is the use of evidence or lack thereof, based on other medical care. The way to explain this category is that a care plan for a patient is proven effective without any proof as to why. The example given by Kongstvedt (2007) is the use of beta blockers post heart attack. Beta blockers prove to be effective in nearly one h...
Truog, Robert D., Walter Robinson, Adrienne Randolph, and Alan Morris. "Is Informed Consent Always Necessary For Randomized, Controlled Trials?" The New England Journal of Medicine 340, (March 1999): 804-807.
2- In fact it is notorious clinical study. The patients should know the purpose, benefits and risks of the study. The patients had been mislead
I do believe that every person life is meaningful and precise no matter what they are endured in certain situation in life; unfortunately, Dr. Michelle Hoover does not seem to understand that. She is a staff member in a health care institution who work with patients from the range age 40 to 75-year-old, and take care of them when their physician is unavailable. These patients suffer all type of diseases, such as, high blood pressure, depression, diabetes and cancer. However, she thought an anti-depressant drug that is in Phase III randomized also in clinical trials can help these patients because the owner of the company will give her 3,000 dollars for each female patients she is enrolled in the study. In fact, me personally I do not agree in such untrustworthy experiment that first of all can cause harm through those
In modern day society, doing medical research on living human subjects is cruel and simply unheard of. Not only has new technology eliminated the need for it altogether, researchers have learned that it is inhumane. However, the world of medicine has not always been so progressive. People were frequently used for tests throughout history, and to make matters worse, were usually lied to about what was happening to them. Because of this, those who were used as test subjects exhibited symptoms of both physical and mental decay. The short story “Flowers for Algernon” and the film Miss Evers’ Boys help to illustrate the several ethical issues of using humans as test subjects and the negative impact this testing had on the well being of the subjects.
The article provides specific examples of illnesses and diseases which have been cured by animal testing that both humans and animals have benefitted. This supports my topic of animal experiments being used for medical advancements. Pointing out that law often requires that products be tested before being sold to the public, George and Wagner additionally help prove my claim that product testing is a purpose of animal experimentation.
Sacristán, J. (2011, April 25). Exploratory trials, confirmatory observations: A new reasoning model in the era of patient-centered medicine. . Retrieved May 23, 2014, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/57
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "The Principles Approach." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 36-37. Print.
Ethics refers to the values and customs of a community at a particular point in time. At present, the term ethics is guided by the moral principles that guide our everyday actions. These moral principles guide the researcher into deciding what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The foundation of medical ethics is governed by two philosophical frameworks that are deontology, and utilitarianism. However ultimately the ethics committees need to balance the risks, and benefits for the participants and the community associated with the particular research proposal. This balance is quite important as the well being of participants is at risk.7
Though most view hearing the truth from another person an individual’s right and overall kind act, doctors don’t alway look at truth telling as having a positive outcome. The same debate is often had over doctor-patient confidentiality. In general it is more beneficial for doctors to keep that promise, allowing patients to trust their physicians, making them more forthcoming with vital information. However when cases cause physicians to question what is more important, keeping the patient 's secret or breaking trust to create more benefit to all? In search for the right answer, many doctors turn to moral theories like Utilitarianism and Kantianism to help them
According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2015), a clinical trial is defined as “any research study that prospectively assign human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes” (Goldacre, 2012). There are many issues revolving around clinical trials registrations, however the core issues involve those which indicate that only the positive cases, which support their hypothesis, are published (Goldacre, 2012). Similarly, negative results are going missing in the database and they are not being published regardless of journals being open to negative results publication. Researchers conduct studies either supporting or not supporting a claim,
Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317(3): 141-145
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.