Inside Clinical Trials: The Morale Side of Medical Experimentations - Term Paper Example

Inside clinical trials Clinical trials have also been popularly referred to as clinical studies, treatments of test potentialswithin human volunteers in order to deduce the efficiency of the respective modes of treatment before they are eventually administered to the greater population of patients with a similar disorder as the given subject. Such treatments might range from drug administration, use of medical devices, gene therapy, or even biological administration i.e. vaccines. A result of such researches has drawn remarkable improvements within the medicine and surgery field within the two previous centuries, with the lifetime of individuals being extended and the pain and disabilities caused by certain illnesses reduced. Since medicine and surgery could be said to have a solid basis on scientific knowledge, for medical progress, it is definitely essential to initiate research experiments upon human bodies. There could be no doubt at all that the process of human experimentation is desirable and necessary. Society, definitely owes a considerable deal of debt onto the numerous creative physicians who have effectively performed vast ethical experiments and adequately advanced medical technology for the good of the entire population. A variety of allegations have been leveled against this mode of research and experimentation with several critics claiming that this research solution is not appropriate or effective. Even though the enhancements that have been characteristic of the medical research have been said to have made remarkable changes with regard to the total number of lives saved on an annual basis, they have not failed to be faced with several attacks regarding the practices. In case there be any form of doubt, I insist that I am obviously in favor of these researches, although there ought to be an insistence of ethical conduct in performing such tasks due to the vulnerability of the individuals involved (Skloot 62). Despite the numerous efforts attributed to the use of human bodies in medical research, a few critics have claimed that there still exists a dark side of this form of experimentation; a lengthy history of harmful and dangerous experiments have been reported to have been performed on non-suspecting patients. In fact, not only did the respective physicians failed to obtain the consent of the subject, but they always fraudulently described such experiential procedures as either particular condition’s treatment of a diagnostic procedure, when he actually had no specific reason claim that the given patient would gain from the outcome of the experiment (78). However, it is essential to note that for a successful experiment, the patient ought not to be informed of its details since it might throw him to a state of panic or distress. Contrary to such claims, history has revealed that nonconsensual experiments are always performed on captive individuals within an institution, especially individuals who society might have regarded as ‘least worthy’ (e.g. mentally retarded individuals within the mental institutions). Such individuals are often unable to reject or decline the experiments and very few individuals would be aware of what actually happened. Such unethical behaviors are said to have prompted the federal government to move swiftly and establish guidelines and regulations for clinical research in order to protect the subjects from unreasonable risks. In order to ensure that these medical practices are done with utmost ethical considerations, a variety of regulations with regard to medical experimentation upon human beings ought to be considered: 1. Rational desire for every researcher to have access to the human subjects. Even though ‘new’ might often be linked to ‘better’, it is not clear whether a potential medical treatment could offer benefit or could harm the subjects under review. Clinical research, therefore, might be regarded as a remarkably integral section of new product development and discovery. Therefore, all experiments on human beings are supposed to be done after prior animal experiments are undertaken and revealed that the technique or drug under review possesses an extremely reasonable likelihood of being of benefit to the human beings. In effectively assessing the acceptability and desirability of the experiment, one ought to consider the subsequent severity of the illness or disorder (e.g. minor inconvenience v. terminal illness), as well as the likely side effects of the entire experimental treatment process. 2. All the potential subjects have the right to offer informed consent (e.g. consent after the researcher or experimenter has offered a complete, honest disclosure of the risks involved) before any experiment is done on them. It is necessary to obtain an informed consent for the sake of the subject’s personal autonomy. 3. The researchers’ conflict of interest where they desire to seek consent from a greater number of subjects, and then require all the subjects to undergo the whole experimental program; however, as a physician, the researcher might not be obligated to harm or even exploit the subjects/ patients. 4. The expected societal benefit ought to outweigh the foreseeable subjects’ risks. Such benefits ought to be judged by the clergy and the attorneys and not the experimenters so as to obtain some objectivity On a personal perspective, the three aforementioned regulation need not be balanced against one another but ought to be independently without fail, otherwise, the entire medical practice would be considered unethical and, therefore, ineffective and inappropriate. It has been proved that participating in a clinical trial often offers the best care quality for illnesses of the subjects who opt to participate in them. In undertaking the exercise, individuals stand to save a wider generation from the same illness since research reveals that almost 78% of all clinical trials often end up successful and effective. Helping other individuals, as well as receiving better, more attention to the subjects’ diseases could be extremely effective even in instilling hope to them. However, some of the critics claim that an individual might be persuaded into being a subject of clinical trial by the remarkable amount of compensation that could be offered to hum in case any side effects are experienced either during or after treatment. Although this might be partly true, the FDA has swiftly moved to address the idea of transparency to the practice of human experimentation. It has been said to be committed to entirely protecting the subjects of clinical trials, together with providing reliable and effective information to the individuals that participate in the experiments (74). Before any individual eventually becomes a subject to these trials, he is entitled to be offered a full explanation by the researchers prior to the trial. This move is geared towards providing insight to the patient regarding the effects of what he might be getting himself into. It is prudent to note that the decision to partake the exercise solely lies on the subject and is not compelled by any other factors like persuasion. Therefore, once a deal has been reached between the two parties, the experiment could then commence after the eventual consent of the subject. With such a process, I believe, all the parties would benefit; from the researcher, the subject and the general population of patients having the same disorder as the subject (provided the experiment successfully pushes through). With regard to the social benefits that accrue from biomedical researches on human subjects, the discovery of vaccines has been regarded as an extremely efficient means of curbing several illnesses or biological action. For instance, the use of the experiments has resulted to the discovery of family planning pills, thus resulting to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies within the wider population. Unwanted pregnancies within most cultures that are strict in moral upbringing often results to stigmatization of the involved individuals. With the emergence of new means of curbing such occurrences, it could be said to the clinical trial methods are, after all, an effective means of protecting the wider society (92). While some religious critics might attempt to claim that the discovery of birth control pills might paralyze God’s intended purpose for man, which was to procreate, it is essential to note that an unwanted pregnancy would lead to an abortion (which is a form of murder) thereby going against the commandment of God that prohibits murder. Taking caution would, thus, be the most effective means of survival. In addition, the clinical trial method was employed in the creation of a vaccine meant to enable the bodies of the soldiers into being immune to the respective biologically toxic weapons during war. Such vaccines are remarkably essential in benefiting the wider soldier community, even though it was initially tested on one or a few individuals in a bid to determine its effectiveness (112). For instance, in case every individual had been vaccinated against the biologically toxic substances within Japan, then its entire population would not have suffered the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Although it has been argued that the subsequent introduction of vaccines against the biological toxins happened to increase war activities, it paramount to note that war is inevitable and individuals, within a medically alert society, ought to be protected. Furthermore, wars often have numerous impacts both politically and economically, and only an illogical government would subject its country to war as a result of an immunized army without considering other significant effects to the greater population. With regard to the religious filed, there has never emerged a field that has continuously rebuked this practice like this field. It could be true that the subsequent use of human bodies as if they were dummies is impractical and out of logic, but considering the fact that there could never be any other way to determine the effectiveness of a technique or drug, then the use of clinical trials would be the only most effective means regardless of the supposed ‘disrespect’ to the human being. A perfect example of the clinical trials could be attributed to the Human Genome Project whose intention was to determine the subsequent DNA constituents within a human body, as well as determine the three billion chemical bases’ sequences that constitute the human DNA. Even though the actual aim of the research might not have been attained, the entire process in itself has accorded researchers with a wealth of information regarding the DNA structure and human biology, thus enabling them to study distinct treatments together with diagnostic tests that would be helpful to the entire population. Although the process might be lengthy and the outcome unlikely, most of the clinical trials that have been carried out so far have generated positive yields not only to the medical field by to the subsequent participants as well. One of the things that makes the process tick is that, most of the times, the risks expected to be incurred by carrying out a particular experiment are often adequately accounted for, making it easy for the physicians to go about the exercise. While some might argue that the process of healing from the distinct side effects of a clinical trial might be lengthy and often demanding for the subjects involved, but, more often than not, they are often eventually eradicated, yet another technique for cure has been attained to help the greater population. Although some of the side effects might often last a lifetime, as claimed by a few critics, the chances of such occurrences are often close to zero since, as said earlier, the trial ought to be done after an already elaborate, similar trial has been done on an Animal to ascertain its effectiveness. Nevertheless, the patient is often accorded all the information regarding the exercise, which includes the risks involved, and the subsequent compensation scheme so that the eventual decision would squarely lie on him. Furthermore, some diseases are often chronic yet they lack a cure. Most patients would often prefer to risk their lives in order to seek cure to their predicament than just sit back and wait to die. It is often better to try and fail than not to try at all. With this regard, it does not mean that the medical field often places the lives of its individual patients at stake since they posses illnesses that are incurable, but it simply implies that in case a solution has to be reached that one of the parties involved ought to go an extra mile; the good thing is that this extra mile is not just for himself but for the entire population of individuals suffering a similar ailment as him as well. Conclusion While the debate regarding clinical trials and the use of human subjects might continue to rock the medical field, it is extremely essential to note that the ultimate goal of any medical practitioner is often to save a life. Ethical practitioners would never desire to place the lives of their patients at stake for selfish gains. It is with this regard that a claim is made regarding the use of clinical tests and human subject. Having established that a medical practitioner would strive to ensure that his patient gets well, this exercise, though might be risky and exposes the subjects to immense risks, is the most appropriate form of creating effective medication for the general good of the entire population. While it might seem difficult to trust the acts of these experimentation, it is actually a viable means; as long as the laid down regulations by the federal government are followed to the latter, there is no need for alarm. However, individuals who are found unethically carrying out these practices ought to be heavily reprimanded and sued for unethical malpractices, and their medical license seized. With this regard the federal government also ought to play its role in monitoring such tendencies and apprehending such individuals in order to clean up the medical profession and make the world a healthy place to thrive. Works cited Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Crown, 2010. Print. Read More