The public has a moral obligation to be guinea pigs for science!!!

Public morally obliged to take part in scientific research, says
leading
ethicist
31 Mar 2005
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=22028




The public has a moral obligation to support and take part in
scientific
research, says a leading ethicist in the Journal of Medical Ethics.

John Harris, Professor of Bioethics at the Institute of Medicine,
Law and
Bioethics at the University of Manchester, does not advocate making
it a legal
requirement for people to get involved. But he contends that
compulsion is, in
principle, justifiable, and in certain circumstances, may be
justified.


Shows you where our good ole countrys headed!

Donna

No man is an island.

I benefit personally from studies that were done on other people.

I have absolutely no problem with my experiences with health care benefiting
others, including those involving studies.

Jeff

But he contends that
compulsion is, in
principle, justifiable, and in certain circumstances, may be
justified.


Compel a person..."Force" a person to be a guinea pig is NOT ethical! I
have no problem with expirmental medicine...My sons life was saved because
"I" allowed him to be put on an expiremental drug..But when you say Force
people to be guinea pigs...YOUR CROSSING the line and can now be compared
to the Nazi Sceintist!

100,000 Americans Die EACH year because of adverse reactions to
drugs...Now Pharma wants it to be a moral obligation for the American
People to be USED as Guinea Pigs?? They can kiss off!

"Kevysmom" wrote in message

100,000 Americans Die EACH year because of adverse reactions to
drugs...Now Pharma wants it to be a moral obligation for the American
People to be USED as Guinea Pigs?? They can kiss off!


All drug use now is an experiment, so now they want to force people to be
guinea pigs over getting them to do it through ignorance. Nazi surfaces

Kevysmom wrote:
Compel a person..."Force" a person to be a guinea pig is
NOT ethical!

Once again - you read but you do not understand. He wasn't
suggesting what you say here.

--
00doc

"Kevysmom" wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
But he contends that
compulsion is, in
principle, justifiable, and in certain circumstances, may be
justified.


Compel a person..."Force" a person to be a guinea pig is NOT ethical!

How about making a treatment permanently unavailable, because there is no
way to make the data that would show whether a particular treatment works,
like in certain emergencies?

I
have no problem with expirmental medicine...My sons life was saved because
"I" allowed him to be put on an expiremental drug..But when you say Force
people to be guinea pigs...YOUR CROSSING the line and can now be compared
to the Nazi Sceintist!

To whom are you replying? You say 'YOUR [sic] CROSSING ....' Who's you? The
person you are responding to is yourself.

100,000 Americans Die EACH year because of adverse reactions to
drugs...Now Pharma wants it to be a moral obligation for the American
People to be USED as Guinea Pigs?? They can kiss off!

The hundred-thousand number includes many people who were extremely sick and
would have died anyway.

But you make a valid point. A lot of people have adverse reactions. The more
we learn about drugs, the fewer people will have adverse reactions.

In the US, no university or hospital can conduct any trial without going
through an ethics panel to examine the risks and benefits of the trial.

So, I have absolutely no problem with encouraging people to take part in
clinical studies.

I have no problem with making it mandatory for patients to take part in
clinical stuidies under very limited circumstances. For example, in some
parts of the country, there are studies to give patients having a stroke
magnesium sulfate IV in the ambulance or the ER. There is no way you can get
consent from all these patients. As long as the study is minimal risks, is
properly followed, had a reasonable chance of working and is approved by
appropriate ethics panels, I see absolutely no reason why the study
shouldn't be carried out, as long as there is no other way to get the data,
I think it is a good idea to have people participate in the study without
informed consent. In fact, this is the only type of study where I can see it
is justified to include people who have not given informed consent.

If you have a better way of getting the data, please let us know.

I think you are really overreacting. The essay was the opinion of one
person. It is not law. And, in cases, would human subjects be used without
properr approval of the appropriate ethics committee.

Jeff

"john" wrote in message
...

"Kevysmom" wrote in message

100,000 Americans Die EACH year because of adverse reactions to
drugs...Now Pharma wants it to be a moral obligation for the American
People to be USED as Guinea Pigs?? They can kiss off!


All drug use now is an experiment, so now they want to force people to be
guinea pigs over getting them to do it through ignorance. Nazi surfaces

There is no way to tell how any drug real react in any patient, even a
patient who has had the drug before. Nothing is certain.

Yet drugs have thousands of lives each year. Drugs have aided physicians in
reaching a 50% cure rate for cancer (higher for pediatric cancers), enabled
physicians to cure many infections, decrease the consesquences of diabetes,
partically eliminated many diseases from the US, like measles, rubella
related birth defects, polio and smallpox from the US and decreased the
consesquences of hypertension.

Except in certain circumstances, I don't see any reason to compel people to
participate in studies. The only reason why I can see this is in cases
involving emergency care where informed consent can't be reasonably given,
and only after the study has been properly approved by ethics committees.

Jeff

Kevysmom wrote:
But he contends that
compulsion is, in
principle, justifiable, and in certain circumstances, may be
justified.


Compel a person..."Force" a person to be a guinea pig is NOT ethical!
I
have no problem with expirmental medicine...My sons life was saved
because
"I" allowed him to be put on an expiremental drug..But when you say
Force
people to be guinea pigs...YOUR CROSSING the line and can now be
compared
to the Nazi Sceintist!

100,000 Americans Die EACH year because of adverse reactions to
drugs...Now Pharma wants it to be a moral obligation for the American
People to be USED as Guinea Pigs?? They can kiss off!

Wait, you're mixing up the United States and a quotation and article
about the United Kingdom. (You did know that the University of
Manchester was in the UK, right?). This seems like a big stretch -- but
it also seems like a big stretch to say that obligation is compulsion,
given what the article says. Interestingly, there's a group at Brandeis
in the US reviewing Ethics/Medical Research as of 2000 (forward) in the
US; I await their summaries.

Here's the closing quotation in the article you cited:

'He concludes: "The argument concerning the obligation to participate
in research should be compelling for anyone who believes there is a
moral obligation to help others, and/or a moral obligation to be just
and do one's share."

"Little can be said to those whose morality is so impoverished that
they do not accept either of these two obligations," he says. '

About the 100k deaths, I'm all for more research to diminish drug
interactions. Then again, I'm one of those weenies who also feels that
the FDA has been gutted recently and that the post-approval 'adverse
reaction' tracking is minimal; then again, as you mentioned, there's a
big push to get a drug out to market if, as in the case of your son, it
could have a dramatically positive effect. It's a balance, and I'm not
sure what your position is on this.

Caledonia

Jeff wrote:
"Kevysmom" wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
I
have no problem with expirmental medicine...My sons life
was saved
because "I" allowed him to be put on an expiremental
drug..But when
you say Force people to be guinea pigs...YOUR CROSSING
the line and
can now be compared to the Nazi Sceintist!

To whom are you replying? You say 'YOUR [sic] CROSSING
....' Who's
you? The person you are responding to is yourself.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Now she is calling herself a Nazi! rolling out of the seat
laughing It was funny enough when she responded to herself
with flames the first time. This is just too much.

She must qualify for some type of Darwin type award for most
number of self derogatory responses.

--
00doc

Caledonia wrote:

Wait, you're mixing up the United States and a quotation
and article
about the United Kingdom. (You did know that the
University of
Manchester was in the UK, right?).

She can't even keep track of which posts are her own or
(apparently based on her self flames) what she believes. She
can't understand grade school level math (percentages) or
high school freshman level chemistry (basic units and
concentrations vs. quantities). She reads at a grade school
level.

All this and you want to know if she knows where the
University of Manchester is? She probably couldn't tell you
where NYU is.

--
00doc