Ideological conflicts in medical research - Essay Example

?Ideological Conflicts in Medical Research Introduction In general sense, research refers to a search for new knowledge. Medical research can be defined as the process of enquiries and studies meant for helping and supporting the body of knowledge in the field of medicine. Constant research is a must in the field of medical science as it is crucial in determining the fortune of the entire humanity. Undoubtedly, the world is confronting new variety of maladies these days. Medical research is one of the battle fields in which on-going ideological warfare is being waged over whether human beings should be treated as ends or whether they can be treated as mere means. Although there are arguments for and against, this paper tends to maintain that human beings can be treated as means provided that the experimentations par with the ethical perceptions and medical research law and practice. Arguments for and against To begin with, the purpose of medical researches is to invent new medicines for addressing ailments. If such medicines are tested in animals, we may fail to accurately predict the exact repercussions of such medicines on human beings. It is not sure that all medicines that work on animals should work on human beings. Moreover, a positive dimension of this is that it reduces the unethical treatment of animals in the name of medical research. For, human beings and other animals have equal importance in this world. Therefore, an experiment for the betterment of his race must be done on himself. One may say that all experimentations carried on in medical field intend the common good of the mankind and hence there is no problem in taking a few as the means to reach the end. However, humanitarians are always against treating man as means. The exponents who argue that man must only be treated as an end may put forward the following arguments. If a person participates in a new drug application trial, his primary reason can be that he gets an opportunity to get extra money. He believes that the doctor will do his/her part well and no harm will be caused to him. In fact, if that person meets with any serious disaster during the trial, no one will be responsible since the individual has taken the decision at his own discretion. Therefore, it is not ethical to deploy human beings for such dangerous experiments. The reason lies with the fact that a physician always tries to save one’s life by all means whereas, a researcher tries to generate knowledge experimenting with the patients (Boomgaarden & Louhiala, 2003, p. 101). Evidently, the subject’s life is put in danger. At this juncture, the ethical perception of a researcher is set in dispute. For, the researcher will not act as a physician but only a researcher; and nobody will be found responsible for a damage caused to the human life underwent experimentation (ibid). In addition, since man is superior to all, his security and wellbeing must be given prime consideration. If samples of trial medicines are first tested on animals there is a privilege of identifying the likely bad effects on man. Hence, potential risks against the subjects can be eliminated that way. In the same way, it is highly unethical to use captivated person, mentally retarded persons and persons who are regarded as less worthy as subjects without their consent. For example, the Nazi experiments conducted in Concentration Camps during Second World War (Standler, 2000). It must be noted that, as an individual, the doctor cannot take any measure or try any course of action without the assent of the person captivated or compelled to undergo experimentation. Moreover, due to the application of the untested medicines the survivor is likely to give in for other kinds of ailments though he is not directly affected by the experiment shortly (ibid). On the other hand, it is not always possible to use man as end due to a number of constraints. Therefore, according to this opinion, man must be used as means as well. Such trials are usually conducted on relatively small number of healthy volunteers. The purpose of such a trial is to determine what dosage of the drug is to be applied to make a response in the human body, how the body reacts to the new drug and whether it produces any toxic effects. If some are ready to come forward voluntarily for the wellbeing of the entire society we need not disappoint them. So, the argument of misusing of subjects is not valid in this regard. People who come forward for the common good of the society are always given monitory and non monitory benefits. The subjects and their family receive medical assistance for the service rendered by the physicians. Double experimentation of medicines first in animals and then in human beings is extremely time consuming. If it is directly applied to human beings, the lime lag and the expenditure incurred can be reduced.The components in certain medicines are expected to cause ill effects in human body in the long run. They can be identified only when they are applied to human beings. Conclusion However, all researches done are for the betterment of the human race itself. And usually there is no intension to harm anyone physically or otherwise. We cannot simply do away with medical researches on the ground that men are being used as mere means. However, before selecting a person to undergo the predefined research, the researchers should make certain that the physical and psychological risks are minimised (Kapp, 2006). The anticipated risks and benefits of the experiments must be communicated to the subjects in advance. The subjects also must be given the opportunity to participate and discontinue from participation at anytime without being imposed any penalty (ibid). In other words, the subjects must be treated s autonomous agents. The trained physicians are to adhere to the medical ethics throughout their service. Undoubtedly, the society is indebted to the creative physicians and surgeons who have conducted medical researches and developed advanced medical technology as we see today. Therefore, treating man as means cannot be criticised as long as it is ethically and legally right. References Boomgaarden, J & Louhiala, P 2003, Issues in Medical Research Ethics: A Workbook for Practitioners and Students, USA: Berghahn Books. Kapp, MB 2006, ‘Ethical and legal issues in research involving human subjects: do you want a piece of me?’, Journal of Clinical Pathology, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 335-339. Standler, RB 2000, ‘Nonconsensual medical experiments on human beings’, Rbs2.com, Viewed 22 February 2012, Read More