Ethics Paper
Ethics Paper
Christina Bay
HSC 421-001
good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.” When discussing the topic of ethics and the concept
of moral behavior, it’s easy to perch ourselves on a high horse, look down our noses at previous actions
of unethical behavior and pronounce judgment against the perpetrators. When considering slavery, the
atrocities against Native Americans, the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, and the holocaust
horrors, one can easily say that the behavior toward the victims was a travesty, and it was. The toll in
terms of loss of life and human dignity that occurred is unfathomable and inexcusable. Furthermore, in
today’s world of research and medical practice, we can easily judge the behavior of the Nazis
experimenting on Jewish victims to be unethical. We can deem the Public Health Service of the United
States immoral for allowing 399 African American men to be left untreated for syphilis to see what
happens. And we can assuredly decry the use of senile patients for research as incomprehensible.
However, according to Hurley et al. (2011), issues of ethics and responsible behavior in research and
healthcare have not always been reflective of the current, clear-cut conventions. They have evolved
over hundreds of years of human interaction. (p. 54). Now researchers and participants benefit from
the guidelines of the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, and the Belmont Report. Even so,
there remain gray areas regarding ethics and responsible conduct for clinical research, especially when
Given the ethical concerns surrounding studies on children, prisoners, and animals, why would
researchers want to delve into doing clinal trials on these groups? Let’s examine the pros and cons of
each, starting with children. First, studies on children provide essential information for proper
treatment and care of childhood or infant conditions. While children have similar bodily processes,
responses, and functions, they are not just miniature replicas of their adult counterparts. Therefore, it is
crucial to understand conditions and disease processes at a pediatric level to treat them properly.
Second, pharmacological effects and responses to medicine vary in children compared to adults, so
knowing which drugs are safe is imperative. For example, children and teenagers taking aspirin for viral
conditions can develop Reye’s syndrome, yet adults do not suffer from this same response. Finally,
clinical studies on children can improve the quality of future pediatric care, provided the risk of harm
does not outweigh the benefits. The cons of doing research on children include their inability to fully
understand and consent, the possibility of increased risk due to age and size, and being able to
I feel mixed about research on children. While studies on children do produce beneficial
treatments, children are such a vulnerable population and can easily be exploited in the name of
science. One such study that is often highlighted by opponents of child research is the behavior study
conducted on Little Albert by John B. Watson. Watson used negative reinforcement methods to
condition Little Albert to fear bunnies, a Santa Clause face, and a white rat when initially he showed no
fear. The experiment was later excoriated for its abuse of Little Albert. I believe research for
medications and treatments should be done on children because they provide long-term health
benefits. However, they must have the highest set of controls for the child’s projection.
Regarding research on prisoners, at first glance, the cons can seem to outweigh the pros.
Conducting research on prison populations has historically been fraught with ethical misconduct, such as
injecting them with cancer cells, exposing them to harmful topical products, and unnecessarily radiating
body parts. Therefore, any research done in prisons could easily be interpreted as immoral. The cons
against clinical trials on prisoners are easy to list. The first is susceptibility to exploitation. Christopher et
al. (2016) state that “prisoners have restricted social, healthcare, and economic freedoms. Thus, studies
that offer access to otherwise unavailable resources may seem to exploit inmates' circumstances.”
Second, like the idea of being exploited, is the chance of being coerced. Inmates who may be
threatened with negative consequences if they don’t participate would more likely be persuaded to
engage in a research study. A third concern or con of research on prisoners is that many suffer from
mental disabilities. With these limited cognitive capabilities, can they truly give informed consent,
benefits to using prison populations for studies. One is that they are an accessible population with a
controlled living environment. To that extent, creating repeatable studies would be easier. A second is
that there would be government funding available for the study, and a third is that inmates would have
access to healthcare treatments that would otherwise be unavailable. This is especially important given
that the prisoners face many health issues and the aging population.
My opinion is that clinical trials on prisoners should absolutely be allowed. They are an available
population; they are being housed at taxpayers’ expense and can be used to contribute to society. With
that being said, I still believe that they have the right to decline to be involved in research; they are not
guinea pigs to be exploited surreptitiously with no regard for human life and human dignity. As with any
study, the Nuremberg guidelines and the Helsinki Declaration must be followed.
What about animal research? Is it ethical? The most significant pro to animal testing is its
numerous diseases, cancer research, and cardiac care, to name a few. Without animal research,
scientists could not have developed the COVID-19 vaccine as quickly as they did. The second pro of
animal testing is that it precedes human testing, thus mitigating the danger of new drugs for humans.
Thirdly, the similarity of animal systems to humans makes them ideal testing subjects. While scientists
recognize the limitations of animal research, they are the closest match to the human system, so much
be used for research purposes. However, I would not be able to personally conduct research on animals
if they showed obvious signs of pain and distress. I do have reservations about animal testing. Three
cons stand out to me. One is that undue pain can be inflicted on them, and animals are often killed in
the process; two, not all drugs that pass animal testing are safe for humans. A prime example is the drug
thalidomide which was given to pregnant women for nausea in the late 1950s and early 1960s. While it
passed animal testing, it was shown to cause congenital deformities when absorbed in utero. Not all
drugs tested end up on the market; therefore, the animal was sacrificed in vain.
Research and clinical trials are necessary for the advancement of medicine and science.
Vulnerable populations such as children, prisoners, and animals invoke considerable debate about the
ethics of such research. Clinical trials should be allowed if extreme care is taken to protect human
rights, utilize humane techniques, and follow the guidelines of the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki
Declaration.
References
from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic