Ethics

Casedecision Scenario Seven
Answer to question 1
The Stein kind of argument is able to be supported from the approach that placebos or sham medical procedures are actually important to people in developing, poor countries where there is no hope of even getting any other type of medical intervention (Paul 86). It is supported on the basis that unlike in the developed world, the patients in the developing world are greatly helped when they are given even false drugs as long as they stand a chance of improving their health. That aside, they also provide an opportunity for other people elsewhere to benefit from the research. Finally, a placebo will most likely cause the patient to improve through the placebo effect.

Answer to question 2
The Congo study is exploitative because although the drug used actually has the potential to help the patient when administered in the correct dosage, this is not done (Decision scenario 7 210). Instead, the patient gets a placebo of the same drug. In the end, the patient is only used to benefit others while heshe gets no benefits at all. In essence, the drug is tested on hisher but it not used to treat hisher. This is exploitation.

Answer to question 3
In order to test a drug in poor countries, it is important that the people on whom the drug is to be tested give their consent based on a clear and explicit knowledge on the likely effects of the drug and the outcomes or consequences (Paul 86). In essence, the people ought to be made aware of the risks as well as the benefits. The World Health Organization also ought to verify the safety of the drug and give its consent. Finally, the government of the country where the testing is dome has to make a freewill choice  no incentives ought to be used to ease any opposition (Paul 86).

Answer to question 4
Utilitarian theorists will oppose the views of Andy based on the argument that if the procedure can be of some use or pleasure to others, then it is justifiable as moral. When Kants theory, which provides that a human being is never to be used as a means to and an end but as an end to oneself, then Andys objection to the Congo-type tests is decisive (Hill 312).

My position
I agree with Kant on the issue that there is no way a human being, who has inherent self worth, ought to be used as a means to any end. The end never justifies the means in a case where people are involved (Hill 312). Clinical trials of the kind described here are highly exploitative and serves to alienate the poor, the sick, the dying, and the desperate at the expense of the rich and the living. The fact that the one group of people is defenseless does not warrant another to use this powerlessness to exploit them.

If it is a really genuine medical test, then why cant it be done on the advantaged societies in the rich countries If there is nothing not hide and instead there is openness and goodwill, how many people from the developed world will readily come forward and sign up for such procedures. Definitely few, if any at all. Therefore, I  believe, every clinical test ought to be done on the people who will benefit only.

Casedecision scenario eight

Answer to question 1
Such experiments are not ethical (Paul 86). It is on the basis of ethical considerations - at least animal ethics - that these experiments ought to be vocally opposed. It is not morally right for any animal which has feelings and has a right to life just like mankind to be subjected to such a  torturous kind of treatment. In fact, every living thing has the right  to live and there is no justification to use brutal force and other cruel methods to bring about surrender on the part of the animal. This would not be any better if the experiment was aimed at saving lives (Decision scenario 8 96). There are better, less cruel approaches that can be taken under such circumstances.

Answer to question 2
I personally do not think that my position on the ethical considerations on such matter ought to be any different because of the understanding that my own child or a close relative is to benefit from such. Rather, the point to be grasped is that any opposition to the method ought to be made on the basis of the cruelty with which such experiments are done and not on their potential usefulness - even if it involves my own self or loved one.

Answer to question 3
There are enough grounds to prove the sanctity of human life over any other life and most religious groups will attest to this. The creator of all things required that mankind be given priority over all other animals and plants. In fact, mankind was to have dominion over the other entire living things on the face of the earth. This is a position that is for those followers of Christianity as a majority religion. People of other faiths might not have any such grounds. Using patients in chronic vegetative state in experiments violates their rights to live as they are made to die in an unnatural way. This is tantamount to murder, I believe.

My position
The value that scientific researches and discoveries have brought about is great. They have helped save lives of many people and have become a part of the daily lives of these people. To that, it is a very good practice and approach. However, the problem arises when these experiments are conducted in ways which are not conventional but are very cruel (Decision scenario 8 96). This cruelty is never acceptable because it contravenes the moral and ethical rights of some of the animal species involved. If science has to be used productively and to be without a lot of controversy, it is essential for the researchers not to carry out their experiments on the species that cannot defend themselves. Only then can the magnitude of the pain inflicted and the level of cruelty meted on these harmless and defenseless creatures can be actually quantified.

Marginalized groups of people like the chronically ill, the dying, or even those who have consented to such experiments ought not to be the targets of such experimentation. It is amazing that certain people have to be aided to die not because they are actually in such a dire need of dying but because someone wants them dead so a vital organ of theirs can be used for some scientific research. It defeats logic that animals and defenseless people become the targets of the scientific experiments even if they are very beneficial. What is ironical is that these researches tend to benefit the rich more than the poor who cannot easily afford the technology, yet it is the poor who are most likely to be used as potential objects for the experimentation.