In a world need driven to advancement, it is not surprising to come across case in which new technologies, weapons, and medical treatment are required to be tested on humans in order to showcase their validity. Great problems and tragedies occur when experiments on humans are performed in an unethical and inhumane way. Ignorer to prevent these types of unethical experimentation from occurring and to protect any humans involved in these experiment a historical set of rules, codes and procedures for human experimentation have been put into place over the last several decades. In the example we will be looking at, “Operation Delirium,” conducted by the U.S. Army during the Cold War era, that broke many of the previously standing rules for ethical …show more content…
Army Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center. The experiments tested the lethality, symptoms, treatments and side effects of nerve gasses; Sarin, BZ, VX; and later psychotropic drugs like LSD on human subjects starting in the late 1940’s to the late 1970’s. Over the course of the experiments, three guiding documents on the ethical practice of human experimentation were either in play or came to fruition. Application of these rules/guidelines for human experimentation to the Edgewood experiment showcases multiple ethical violations under all three …show more content…
The Declaration expands more on the notion of Informed consent when applied to human experimentation. Like the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki requires all human subjects voluntarily consent to the experiment under no forms of duress and after being full informed of all potential risks. The Declaration makes a point that “appropriate compensation and treatment.” must be provided for any of the participants that are negatively affected or harmed by the experiments. This does not appear to be the case with the Edgewood experiments. In the early 1980’s the Institute of Medicine found that it could not rule out long term heath problems for the participants of the study. The notion was further founded in 2009 when the plaintiffs in Vietnam Veterans of America, et al v .Central Intelligence Agency, et all cited refusal to provide compensation and treatment in their lawsuit. Near the end of the experiments at the Edgewood facility another ethical guideline came into play. The Belmont Report (1979) when on to shape the Common Rule which serves as the U.S.’s governing document on experiments involving human test subjects. The Belmont Report proceeded to expand upon policy present in the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki while adding in some important expansions. The Belmont Report specifically added in under is definition of self-determination,
Belmont Report (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved from hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
“Ethical Issues of the Milgram Experiment.” Associated Content. Yahoo, 8 November 2008. Web. 12 October 2011.
"Medical Experiments ." 10 June 2013. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum . 18 March 2014 .
During the process of research, professionals collect data or identifiable private information through intervention or interaction. While this is a vital part of the scientific and medical fields, every precaution must be taken by researchers to protect the participants' rights. Ethics, outlined by the Belmont report; requirements, described by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); and regulations, laid out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are verified by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This procedure assures that all human rights are safeguarded during the entire research process.
"Nazi Medical Experimentation: The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments." The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
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)
The dropping and the atomic bomb and the continued use of human subjects during scientific testing in the 20th century continues to be a controversial subject. It is because the actions carried out saved many lives and that those hurt were informed and volunteered that these methods were moral. It is because of the debate surrounding these actions that science has continued to evolve. From these earlier practices, more rigid experimental methods are enforced. These new regulations protect the patient and continue to ensure that those sacrificing their safety to aid others are not injured without fully understanding the risks involved. The modern world will continue to benefit from the actions taken by the United States during the 20th century.
Informed consent has been preserved as a sacred value since medicine started caring for the sick and it is still upheld today as a critical component of clinical research. Ensuring voluntary participation through an informed decision-making process in clinical research continues to be an ethical and moral obligation of the study team, quite often the study nurses. Over time these forms have reached a degree of unreasonableness; exceeding twenty pages, being too complex, and readability that exceeds the targeted populations. A deluge of literature over the past decade reaffirms and begs for change. In 2011, the federal government agency, Office of Human Research Protections, has responded by publishing and receiving comments on an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (ANPRM); however, there has been no further public information of action. This brief aims to provide an overview of the issues, background, as well as several possible ways to lobby for action.
"Nazi Medical Experiments." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Council, 10 June 2013. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
This report is over human experiments conducted by various governments over several decades. The governments involved include, but are not limited to, the Nazis, the soviets and even America. Some of these experiments that were tested on these people were very disgusting and extremely cruel.
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane; that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organism have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals. The argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
Development of Code of Ethics. In: McNeill PM, ed. The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1993:37-51.
In December 1946, the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg indicted 20 Nazi physicians and 3 administrators for their willing participation in carrying out the harmful research on unwilling human subjects. Thus, Nuremberg code was the first international code for the ethics to be followed during human subject research. It was permissible medical experiments implemented in August 1947. The code also provides few directives for clinical trials (3). Syphilis study at Tuskegee in 1974 was the most influential event that led to the HHS Policy for Protecti...
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.
Ethics is the study of moral values and the principles we use to evaluate actions. Ethical concerns can sometimes stand as a barrier to the development of the arts and the natural sciences. They hinder the process of scientific research and the production of art, preventing us from arriving at knowledge. This raises the knowledge issues of: To what extent do moral values confine the production of knowledge in the arts, and to what extent are the ways of achieving scientific development limited due to ethical concerns? The two main ways of knowing used to produce ethical judgements are reason, the power of the mind to form judgements logically , and emotion, our instinctive feelings . I will explore their applications in various ethical controversies in science and arts as well as the implications of morals in these two areas of knowledge.