As we engaged in discussions about the ethics of medical research, we began a sort of Machiavellian argument over whether the ends of medical research justified the means. While the argument didn't extend too far before we changed the subject, I'd like to address that a little further.
Modern day medical research requires clear and true consent. A perfect example can be seen in our own OSCAR Expo, in which all presentations which include medical experimentation with human test subjects must have been approved by the Institutional Research Board or IRB. This heavily regulated consent structure was the result of several events, such as the Tuskegee Siphillus Experiments, as well as many others. So when we look at ends justifying the means lets have a few examples:
In World War II, much like Dr. Mengele in Nazi Germany, the Japanese committed several war crimes by experimenting on human beings to test poisons, weapons, chemicals, and many other things. The innovations the Japanese discovered were not, however, all weaponized, and in fact a lot of important medical breakthroughs were achieved by the Japanese doctors. So, to use this Machiavellian lens with which we approached the topic in the past, if 100 innocent people were saved by these medical innovations, and 20 soldiers were killed in the process, or even just harmed, was it worth it? From a utilitarian stand point, this would always be true, but when we are speaking on human morality, it's clearly an individual decision. What do you think?
AS it pertains to a saving stand point I would have to say that if a couple of lives could save millions it would be necessary. I would be part of either side myself in the matter either giving up or getting my life saved thanks to another human being. However, I would not want to take away another persons life just to save another, there needs to be a factor of ultimate sacrifice or it is just a redundant save one life by ending another situation.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the Machiavellian argument is that it is difficult to know where to draw the line on experimentation. Is it ok if 100 people are harmed to save 101 people? 100 for 100? 100 person harmed to save 1 person or vice versa? It's impossible to agree, so I believe it's easier just to decide such a situation just shouldn't occur.
ReplyDeleteRelating this to Henrietta Lacks, it becomes a question of whether it was ok to exploit one woman, and her family, to benefit millions of other people. According to my argument no, she should have been informed and if not move on to someone else. I'm sure others would disagree with me however.
It's pretty mixed on how I feel about this whole aspect. But I will agree with Rob and say that it is difficult to draw a line. It would be good to have an experiment to try and eliminate a disease; but if its at the cost of hundreds of people, then I wouldn't hold that experiment. Sure sacrifices should be made to help people, but there should be an extent of how we can help people.
ReplyDeleteWhen it does come to Henrietta though, I don't believe it was ok to exploit one woman. I would keep the patient completely confidential because I would not want to embarrass Henrietta and her family in some way. The family should have been informed prior.