Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Bioethical Issues - Essay Example

Article Review I. Introduction The question that the world should ask itself today is, why and how much, may governments be willing to risk on the human lives for the sake of coming up with vaccines, nuclear power weapons among other experiments. In some of the government experiments, people may not be volunteering, and some have no idea that they are being used as guinea pigs (Levine 10). In the New York Times article by Glenn Cohen and Holly Lynch, the world gets to learn that governments may be willing to do just about anything just to say that they have come up with a vaccine. In the article, readers learn that the United States Public Health Service and the Guatemalan government were behind the scenes in this unethical act. There are ethical problems that arise when experiments are conducted on humans. These include lack of consent, the lack of risk benefits, and the fact that there are no withdrawal rights once the person decides starts these experiments (Wankel and Malleck 5). In the case given by the authors of the article, the experiment was carried out on prisoners in Guatemala, patients who were in mental hospitals, Guatemalan soldiers, and the sex workers. The experiment was conducted to find nouveau methods of prevention without the consent of all these people. As a result, they were exposed to sexually transmitted diseases. These are some of the ethical issues that should be considered. II. Summary Research that involves exposing people to infections is not new, and it has been done previously. However, according to Cohen and Lynch, the only difference between what happened a long time ago and today is the fact that there are a few ethical safeguards today, though some states still have no such ethical safeguards. This is the case with Guatemala, where there was no individual consent and the individuals were in a very vulnerable state. The research method used in the experiment was degrading and record keeping was extremely poor. Due to this poor record keeping, it is extremely hard for the world to know the number of Guatemalans who were actually used in the experiment, how many were infected successfully, treated, or those whose treatment did not work (Cohen and Lynch). Other cases that are similar to this experiment are the 1939 experiment on children in Iowa and the 2000 experiment on people in the U.S. In the year 1939, there was an orphanage in Iowa where 22 children were subjects of an experiment which was inhumane (Wankel and Malleck 16). The experiment induced normal speaking children to start stuttering. It was an experiment that was designed by Dr. Wendell Johnson, a reputed speech pathologist. The experiment was conducted for the purpose of proving one of his theories on stuttering. In the year 2000, the experiment was conducted on U.S. citizens. In this case, the test subjects were injected with artificial blood, and as a result, some became more prone to getting heart attacks while others died. Guatemalans who claim to be among these victims brought an action suit against the government at the federal court in the year 2011. The victims were demanding to be compensated after making several attempts to the government in Guatemala to be compensated through the victim compensation funds. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia had also rejected the victims’ claim on grounds based on jurisdiction and technical aspects. The U.S. still requires solving this problem and easing the injustice that was committed to these people. The congress and the current government in United States are still obligated to enact a voluntary program, which will assist the Guatemala people. This unethical issue was revealed to the world in the year 2010; after a researcher discovered the records. An apology was immediately issued to the victims from the U.S government, and the President ordered an immediate investigation into the matter. The Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues discovered that the studies had violated the code of ethics despite the current standards which are there today (Wankel and Malleck 29). Having been investigated under such a context, the court was deemed to make a fair decision. However, it only emerged that the decision was extremely frustrating to the victims and the fact is that the victims are likely to make appeals. The most appropriate way to solve problems based on unethical conduct has never been through making litigations (Wankel and Malleck 8). The opinion given by the judge shows that, despite the studies showing something unethical that happened, only a person with a political background is likely to have the influence to grant the victims the justice they deserve. III. Ethical Analysis  A. Theory to be Applied To the Health Care Issue One main theory that is applicable to ethical issues on health is the Unitarianism theory. This is a theory that is based on the ability of a person to predict the consequences that come with certain actions. The choice that is yielded brings about some of the greatest advantages to people when it turns out to be correct. The benefit of his theory is that it can be compared to other solutions that are predicted to have a similarity (Levine 14). B. Health Care Principles In ethics, there is a principle of beneficence which guides people on what to do. People or bodies are required to do what is right, and most of all, make the ethical perspective or solution to the ethical problems, which are not acceptable under any standards. This is also a principle which is based on utility, and it states that people should attempt to generate good over evil (Levin 15). The other principle, when it comes to ethical analysis, is that least harm should occur to a person (Levine 15). However, it deals with situations where the choices are neither beneficial or not. For example like in the experiment that took place in 1939, the pathologist, Dr. Wendell Johnson had taken an oath to do the least harm possible to fewest people. Dr. Johnson had, no doubt, broken this oath. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, it is recommended that medical researchers in these modern times should take thorough training on how to conduct researches. Additionally, they also have to take oaths that are stricter. This is likely to remind the unethical researchers to remember the consequences that may come with causing harm or not informing the people involved. Works Cited Cohen, Glenn, and Holly Lynch. "Guatemalans Used in Experiments Deserve Compensation." New York Times. 4 Jul. 2012. Web. 8 May. 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/guatemalans-used-in-experiments-deserve-compensation.html?_r=0 Levine, Carol. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Bioethical Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated, 2007. Print. Wankel, Charles, and Shaun Malleck. Emerging Ethical Issues of Life in Virtual Worlds. New York: IAP, 2010. Print. Read More