Ghida Al Kharfan
Mrs. Nina Shalhoub
English 204- Section ll
15 March 2016
A Critique/Synthesis of the following articles: “Salt in the wound: Will India rise up against the oppression of foreign clinical trials” by Glenn McGee and “Call to Check ‘Unethical’ Drug Trials in India” by Rahul Verma.
In his article “Salt in the wound: Will India rise up against the oppression of foreign clinical trials” written in April 2006, Glenn McGee, the director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, argues that the abuse of the poor people in India by western pharmaceutical industries approaches a kind of “imperialism”. Moreover, Rahul Verma, in his article “Call to Check ‘Unethical’ Drug Trials in India” written in 9 February 2004,
…show more content…
He claims that such trials are creating a business that aims at supporting pharmaceutical companies in other countries. Furthermore, the number of people willing to enroll in India exceeds the one in the United States where the cost of the trials is double that of India. McGee argues that the illiterate Indian population doesn’t distinguish between good and bad trials, and that only few hospitals are being able to conduct adequate clinical trials. Then he describes how crowds in the clinics are mainly created by poor Indian people, since one clinical trial’s cost reaches up to three months’ income. Finally, he brings up the government’s wills to check the safety of the trials before testing them on people and the failure of the whole process after one year because of the increased number of trials. McGee ends his article by wondering whether the Indian nation will ever be able to defeat the new imperialism or …show more content…
For instance, in the fifth paragraph of his article, he said (2006): “200 of the 14 000 general hospitals in India are capable of conducting clinical trials adequately”, and in his seventh paragraph he said: “435 women were given an anticancer drug to treat fertility, but did not know the drug was not cleared for this use”. By presenting such statistics and facts, McGee could strengthen his point of view and back up his arguments, making it easier for the readers to understand his position and be convinced of his thoughts towards clinical trials. He was argumentative, informative and persuasive at the same time, to explain first for the readers the truth behind the clinical trials and to encourage them not to enroll in such doings afterwards. However, McGee seemed a bit contradictory in his article. He talked about clinical trials being behind a new imperialism, a new oppressive authority. So, for a charge of imperialism to be appropriate in this case, he should have shown more evidences about pharmaceutical companies behaving oppressively, rather than focusing on the discounts that they are winning and on the ignorance of poor Indian people about the consequences of clinical trials. As a result, the author was successful in showing the negative aspects of the clinical trials and in warning people about an
When a person seeks medical attention they go with the hope that their personal rights will not be violated with the belief that doctors will uphold their personal standards. Unfortunately, this is not always so for people who visit the hospital. There are documented cases in United States history involving African Americans being experimented on for the greater good without their knowledge or consent, and some of the most heinous cases involve doctors injecting their study groups with life threatening diseases. What happens when good science goes bad and who has the right to relegate the status of another human being as less than? In this research paper we will examine a clinical testing case study featuring the violation and exploitation
Skloot describes how, “When Southam began injecting people with HeLa cells in 1954, there was no formal research oversight in the United States.” (98) Southam’s use of HeLa cells sparked major outrage after headlines reading “PATIENTS INJECTED WITH CELLS NOT TOLD THEY WERE CANCER … SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS CONDEMN ETHICS OF CANCER INJECTION” surfaced. (99) In the end, the Medical Grievance Committee of the Board of Regents found Southam and his fellow researcher, Mandel, guilty of “fraud or deceit and unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine.” (100) This trial lead to a major change in the policy of the NIH, making it so that proposals for research on human subjects had to be reviewed by independent review boards, ensuring that research done would meet ethical requirements. Henrietta’s cells still inspires important discussion on medical ethics -- as Debra DeBruin, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics states, “Researchers can take away an awareness of the impact that research can have on people. Rebecca Skloot does a great job of capturing different perspectives on the issues. Hearing a story like Henrietta Lacks’ takes us out of a purely scientific research perspective and
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 ...
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)
“Generally, the UK 's position in the clinical trials space has been improving with NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) support and much greater NHS commitment to clinical trials. There has been a concerted change in attitude toward clinical trials being relevant to activity of the NHS as well as the medical schools, which have always been interested in terms of trials. I think ultimately it would be a disaster if things like Brexit damaged that growth against our European
In health care there is a fine line between what is ethical and what is not. As time goes on this line becomes thinner and thinner. In the article The Moral Case For The Clinical Placebo, Azgad Gold and Pesach Lichtenberg are two researchers that argue that there are exceptions to this fine line when talking about placebos. They specifically argue, “The intentional use of the placebo, in certain circumstances and under several conditions, can be justified.”1 The placebo is rapidly becoming a problem because it is now a commonly prescribed drug and many people have different ethical views on the topic.
One of the biggest incentives to perform scientific research is the acclaim that comes from making novel discoveries. For some, this is the driving force behind their work and can cause a conflict of interest that sometimes overrides the needs of the patient in cases with unethical actors. This is most relevant to case of John Darsee. To get data for his publications he would often falsify results and would perform experimental stent procedures on unknowing patients. Darsee’s ambitions were put above the health and wellness of the patients he had taken an oath to protect.
As Epstein (2007) alluded that pharmaceutical companies could be exploiting the poor infrastructure, deferential patient population and the lack of regulatory body in developing countries to conduct clinical trials that are ethically unacceptable [12].
Varmus , Harold, and David Satcher. "Ethical Complexities of Conducting Research in Developing Countries." New England Journal of Medicine. 337.14 1003-1005. Web. 9 Feb. 2014.
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "’Rights- Based’ Approaches." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 23. Print.
Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317(3): 141-145
Nelson, J.B. (1973). Human Medicine: ethical perspectives on new medical issues. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House.
The history of medical research in the twentieth century provides abundant evidence which shows how easy it is to exploit individuals, especially the sick, the weak, and the vulnerable, when the only moral guide for science is a naive utilitarian dedication to the greatest good for the greatest number. Locally administered internal review boards were thought to be a solution to the need for ethical safeguards to protect the human guinea pig. However, with problems surrounding informed consent, the differentiation between experimentation and treatment, and the new advances within medicine, internal review boards were found to be inadequate for the job. This led to the establishment of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission by President Bill Clinton in the hopes of setting clear ethical standards for human research.
Our case is that if we don’t test on animals then progress in scientific fields would be halted. As first speaker for the negative I will speak about the benefits of animal testing in general and then I’ll talk in detail about animal testing in medicine. My second speaker will talk about the opinions on testing and the food chain and my third speaker will summarise our points and rebut.
The article titled “Contemporary Ethical Analyses: A Shortfall in Scientific Knowledge” describes the ethics through the public’s eye. One of the major ethical issues brought up is informed consent.