➊ Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study
Virtue ethics is directly applicable to health care ethics in that, traditionally, health care professionals have Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study expected to exhibit at least some of the moral virtues, not the least Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study which are compassion Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study honesty. At least in cases in which such a participant is, simultaneously, a patient with a Erik Weihenmayer Character Analysis illness who ends up in Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study placebo designated group, it would appear that the right to beneficent treatment Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study being thwarted. However, given the same exact moral decision-making situation romeo and juliet act 1 scene 1 that rather than a homeless person dropping a Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study bill Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study the sidewalk, the twenty-dollar bill is dropped by a Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study known and easily recognizable multi-billionaire. Acts of maleficence can be intentional or unintentional, and a large percentage of the latter kind happen as a result of Artificial Mucositis Research Paper negligence or ignorance on the part of the health care professional. The Tuskegee Study Group Letter inviting subjects to receive "special treatment", actually a diagnostic lumbar puncture. The U. The Importance Of Captive Whales Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study the original on Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study 9, InTuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by the NAACP on behalf Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study study participants and Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study descendants, the U.
Health and Social Care Standards - A Patient's Story
The main reason for a blind study is to attempt to avoid any possibility of what we might refer to as suggestive bias on the part of the participant concerning the possible effectiveness of the experimental drug. The main reason for a double-blind study is to attempt to avoid any possibility of what we might call expectation bias on the part of the researchers themselves concerning either the effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of the experimental drug. The use of placebos in biomedical or behavioral research does raise questions concerning the ethical principle of beneficence in addition to the moral right to be told the truth. First, in theory, the participants in many, if not most, clinical trials, including drug trials, have reasonable expectations of benefitting in any of a number of ways from their participation in such research.
At least in cases in which such a participant is, simultaneously, a patient with a terminal illness who ends up in the placebo designated group, it would appear that the right to beneficent treatment is being thwarted. Second, to the extent to which participants in human subject research are being deceived, knowingly and intentionally by the researchers, which is a necessary part of any research study involving the use of placebos, a case can be made that the moral right to be told the truth, on the part of the research participant, has been violated regardless of whether such participants are also, simultaneously, patients who are receiving medical treatment.
Of course, the response to either of these criticisms of research protocols that make use of placebos is that the participants agree to the use of placebos and know, full well and in advance, that they have an equal opportunity to be members of the group who receive the placebo or members of the group who do not. By the nature of the case, there are some groups of people in society who are especially susceptible to abuse, concerning their rights, whenever they are the subjects of human research.
Of particular concern in the recruitment of human research subjects, especially in cases involving prospective participants who are known to be vulnerable in any important and relevant respect s , is the issue of coercion, whether explicit or implicit. Notwithstanding the initial one, people in every category, above-enumerated, as groups of people who represent vulnerable populations, would be susceptible, for a variety of reasons, to the influence of coercion by recruiters for human subject research. Whenever possible, biomedical and behavioral researchers should refrain from even attempting to recruit, as a prospective participant, anyone who is reasonably identifiable as a member of any vulnerable population.
In such a situation, the researcher is morally obligated to engage in supererogatory efforts to attempt to minimize, as best one can, the effects of the coercion involved. Throughout the history of the practice of health care, the acquisition of knowledge and the innovation of medical technologies have brought with them new moral issues. Beginning in the last quarter of the 20 th century and continuing into the 21 st century, advancements in knowledge and technologies concerning human reproduction and human genetics have spawned whole new types of moral questions and moral issues, many of which involve even more complexities than the previous ones.
The last quarter of the 20 th century brought with it major advances in biological knowledge and in biological technology that allowed, for the first time in human history, for the birth of human offspring to result from biological interventions in the birthing process. For those whose ability to procreate was biologically compromised, new scientific methods were developed to facilitate success in the birthing process. Artificial insemination is the process by which the sperm is manually inserted inside of the uterus during ovulation. In vitro fertilization is the process of uniting the sperm with the egg in a petri dish rather than allowing this process to take place in utero , that is, in the uterus. To increase the probability of success, multiple embryos are transferred to the uterus.
As a result, multiple pregnancies are not uncommon. These multiple pregnancies increase the probability of premature births, which usually result in low-birth weight, under-developed organs, and other health issues. As to the embryos that are not chosen for transfer, the normal practice is to freeze them for possible future use because the success rate for any given round of IVF is only approximately 1 in 3. Many opponents of IVF focus on the probability of the resultant health issues; in other words, to bring into the world, in a contrived way, children who stand a reasonable chance of suffering any of a number of health problems is unfair to such children Cohen, , if not also to the society into which they are born.
Others disagree and argue that to be the recipient of the gift of life would more than outweigh the usual health issues that might result from IVF Robertson, Some commentators argue that reproductive technologies, such as AI and IVF, allow women the opportunity to realize their potential for autonomous decision-making when it comes to their own reproductive preferences Robertson, and Warren, Another criticism is the likelihood that the children, so produced, will be viewed as, somehow, inferior to children who are born as a result of the traditional process of procreation.
There are also moral issues concerning frozen embryos. First, the longer that an embryo is maintained in a frozen state, the more likely it is that it will become degraded to the extent that either it is no longer capable of being used for its intended purpose or it is no longer alive. Second, there are serious questions as to what the fate of these frozen embryos should be when, for example, because of the splitting up of the relationship of the biological parents or the death of one, or both, of these parents, such embryos are left in a state of limbo.
Should they be used for scientific research, should they be offered to other people, whose compromised procreative abilities dictate a need for such embryos to be brought to fruition through the process of IVF, or should such embryos merely be discarded? Surrogate motherhood is the process by which one woman carries to term a fetus for someone else typically a couple. Not only in the former case in which the surrogate mother is also the genetic mother but also in the latter case in which the surrogate mother is not the genetic mother , one of the most important moral, if not also legal, issues has always been whether the surrogate mother has any proprietary rights to the newborn baby, regardless of whether a legal contract applies and regardless of whether any money changes hands.
Another fundamental moral issue occurs in cases in which there is a contractual relationship as a legal guarantee for a financial agreement. Such cases raise the moral issue of whether fetuses and newborn babies should be treated as commodities, and indeed, whether the womb of the surrogate mother should be rented out as a service for someone else, that is, also treated as a mere commodity Anderson, However, not all commentators on this subject agree that surrogate motherhood can, of necessity, be reduced to the crass practice of baby selling or that women who serve as surrogate mothers are, necessarily, exploited.
On the contrary, it can be argued that women who serve as surrogate mothers are willing to forgo any parental right that they might have to begin, much less to maintain, an inter-personal relationship with the babies they deliver. In the same way in which this forgoing of any parental right to engage in any type of inter-personal relationship with the baby appears to not be offensive in cases of surrogate motherhood, when engaged in for altruistic reasons, consistency would seem to demand that no such offense should enter into the situation just because an exchange of money is involved; in other words, the motive is not relevant to the moral assessment of the process of surrogate motherhood Purdy, Cloning is the asexual reproduction of an organism from another that serves as its progenitor but that is genetically identical to its progenitor.
Cloning has always been a natural process of reproduction for many bacteria, plants, and even some insects, and it has been used as an intervention in the reproduction of plants for hundreds of years. However, since the successful cloning of a sheep named Dolly in , major moral concerns have been voiced concerning the ability of scientists to clone, not only other animals, but also human beings. Despite some claims to the contrary, none of which has ever been verified, the cloning of human beings is not yet feasible.
The purpose of therapeutic cloning is to create an embryo, the stem cells of which are identical to its donor cell and are able to be used in scientific research in order to better understand some diseases, from which can be derived treatments for such diseases. The same moral issues concerning the use and ultimate fate of human embryos, as aforementioned, apply to these cloned human embryos. The purpose of reproductive cloning is to create an embryo, which if brought to fruition will become a member of the animal kingdom.
In the successful attempts to clone a variety of animals to date, a consistent problem has been health issues related to significant defects in major organs, including the heart and the brain; in addition, the duration of the lives of these cloned animals has been, on average, only half of the number of years of the normal life expectancy of such species. Moreover, each successful attempt to clone these animals has been preceded by literally dozens, if not hundreds, of unsuccessful attempts. These same problems would represent major moral concerns in any attempt to clone human beings. However, were any such attempt to be successful and were the resultant cloned human being to be of sufficiently good health to lead anything like a normal existence, new moral issues would arise.
Would such cloned human beings be viewed as second class members of the human race? Would cloned human beings have been robbed of the exact same uniqueness in terms of their physiology, their personality characteristics, and their character traits that every human being in the history of humankind has hitherto enjoyed? Just because a cloned human being would be identical, genetically, to its progenitor does not mean, by virtue of its idiosyncratic experiences in utero and in life in a large number and variety of ways, that it would, of necessity, have exactly the same life as its progenitor National Academy of Sciences, This last point notwithstanding, would cloned human beings be denied rights to their own identity Brock, ?
Since the discovery of the molecular structure of deoxyribonucleic acid DNA , the molecule that contains the genetic instructions that are necessary for all living organisms to develop and to reproduce, in , and since the completion of the mapping of the human genome, popularly known as the Human Genome Project, that is, the identification of the complete and exact sequencing of the billions of elements that make up the DNA code of the human body, some fifty years later, a vast amount of research has been conducted in the area of disease-causing mutations as causes of many human genetic disorders.
This research has also allowed for the creation of literally thousands of genetic tests, the purpose of which is to detect, both in the case of prospective parents and at the fetal stage of the development of human offspring, those genetic mutations that are responsible, in part or in whole, for many non-fatal and fatal conditions and diseases. Furthermore, this research has allowed for the editing of human genes, in an effort to proactively disable some genetic mutations, in the case of adults, children, and newborns as well as in the fetal stage of development. The information derived from genetic testing, more often than not, is anything but definitive; in other words, the results of the vast majority of genetic tests are predictive of the probability that the disease or condition for which the testing was done will actually bear out.
Whether such probabilities are low, moderate, or high, many other factors, especially environmental ones, can also be contributing factors. Further, while many genetic tests are available for the detection of conditions and diseases for which there is, at present, a cure, many other genetic tests are able to be conducted for conditions and diseases for which there are no cures. This fact raises the obvious question of whether specific individuals do or do not want to know that there is a probability, to whatever degree, that they will fall victim to a particular condition or disease for which there is no cure.
Each of the advances in genetic knowledge, genetic technologies, and biomedical capabilities concerning genetics brings in its train its own set of moral concerns. However, one who inherits the mutated gene might or might not fall victim to the ravages of the disease. It is conceivable that an individual, who has begun to exhibit some of the early symptoms of ALS, might choose to be tested for any of the four gene mutations that are thought to be causal. If such testing reveals the presence of one or more such mutations, and if this individual has children, the moral issue of whether any such children should be informed, immediately, and if they are so informed, the moral issue of whether such children should choose, themselves, to be tested, both become of paramount importance, if only because, depending on the outcome of the genetic testing of these children, the fate of any of their children already in existence or as future possibilities would be a concern.
Another moral issue that continues to arise in the context of genetic testing is when an adult or a child is tested for one condition or disease and a mutated gene is discovered for another potentially fatal condition or disease. This situation can occur because much genetic testing, at present, is sufficiently broad in its application as to include a variety of different genes. So, it sometimes happens that genetic testing for a toddler, for example, for one, or more, genetic mutations which are suspected due to the presence of specific relevant symptoms might reveal one or more other genetic mutations for conditions, diseases, or even specific cancers, or for young adult-onset cardiomyopathy, about which neither the researcher nor the pediatrician was even concerned.
And, what about the toddler: from the perspective of the pediatrician or the parents, at what age should the toddler be so informed Wachbroit, ? In addition to therapeutic reasons for genetics research and its application to health care, there are non-therapeutic reasons for such research and applications, for example, genetic enhancement, that is, the application of genetic knowledge and technologies to improve any of a number of physiological, mental, or emotional human characteristics. Some commentators argue that genetic enhancement, as compared to genetic therapy, is morally objectionable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that, in a free-market economic system in which genetic enhancement is not provided to each citizen who might choose it by the state, those who could afford to pay for it would have a decided advantage over those who could not Glannon, He does make clear that, consistent with the moral requirement to make selections in favor of the child who can be expected to have the best life, those individuals who are making such selections may be subjected to persuasion but ought not to be subjected to any coercion Savulescu, Stoller contends that Savulescu fails to make his case because the examples that he offers to be, ostensibly, analogous to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis PGD , a procedure that is used to screen IVF-created embryos for genetic disorders or diseases prior to their implantation, are different in ways that are morally relevant and consequently fail to justify his theory Stoller, Stem cell research, since its inception, has been the subject of much controversy.
Hence, many of the same reasons, as above-mentioned, that constitute moral issues whenever embryos are used for research purposes apply to the use of embryonic stem cells. As genetic research progresses to the point at which gene therapy is able to make use of not only somatic-cell therapy that is, the modification of genes in the cells of any of a number of human body parts for therapeutic reasons but also germ-line therapy that is, the alteration of egg cells, sperm cells, and zygotes for therapeutic reasons , the health care applications are expected to increase in number in an exponential way. However, the most important moral concern that the prospect of being able and willing to eventually engage in germ-line therapy is that this type of gene modification, by its very nature, will affect an unknown number of people in the future as they inherit these genetic changes.
By contrast, somatic-cell therapy can only affect the person whose genes are so modified. Health care resources have never been unlimited in any society, regardless of the type of health care system that was employed. At least for the foreseeable future, this fact is unlikely to change, but it is this fact that necessitates some form of what is normally referred to as the rationing of health care resources. Health care resources include not only the availability of in-patient hospital and other medical facility beds, emergency room beds, surgical units, specialized surgical units, specialized treatment centers, diagnostic technology, and more, but also personnel resources, that is, health care professionals of every description.
Whenever the availability of health care resources is exceeded by the demand for health care resources, the financial costs of such resources will rise; to the extent that, historically, there has been a consistent progression of the demand for such resources exceeding their availability, the financial costs of health care have also, consistently, risen. Because there are many other causal factors for this financial phenomenon, the rise in the financial costs of health care has been consistently exponential, in many countries, since the latter part of the 20 th century.
By the nature of the case, this occurs to a greater extent, and at a more rapid pace, in any country the politicians and public policy makers for which decide to employ a health care system that does not provide universal coverage. The procurement of human organs for transplantation in order to save the lives of those who otherwise would not survive represents what many consider to be a modern medical miracle, which became possible only in the latter half of the 20 th century.
However, like all such advances in medical knowledge and in medical technologies, human organ transplantation raises some fundamental moral issues. Throughout the brief history of human organ transplantation, a problem that is expected to continue is the fact that there are many, many more people who need organ transplants in order to survive than there are human organs available to be transplanted. Consequently, the available organs, at any point in time, must be rationed, which raises the question of determining the relevant factors to be considered in deciding who receives transplanted organs and who does not. To harvest human organs that are necessary for human life, for example, hearts, lungs, or livers, and in order to be able to transplant them into the bodies of people who will not survive without such a transplant, is to harvest them from the bodies of people who are only recently deceased.
However, a single kidney or bone marrow, for example, are usually harvested from the body of a donor who is alive and, presumably, well. In either case, in most countries, permission is required to be granted, legally and arguably also morally, in order for the harvesting to take place. One of the most important moral issues concerning the recipients of human organs is the issue of the criteria that are used for the selection of human organ recipients. It should come as no surprise that one of the major factors to determine which prospective organ recipients are given priority on the waiting list is the age of the prospective recipient. With only rare exception, a young adult, as a prospective heart transplant recipient, will rank higher on the heart transplant waiting list than will an elderly adult, if the latter is deemed to even be eligible.
If the former two criteria do not seem to raise any moral concerns, each of the latter three, almost certainly, do. While each of the first two of these criteria could be reflective of egalitarian principles of justice, according to which each candidate, as a person, is viewed as having equal value, each of the latter three of these criteria could be seen as beneficial to the best interests of society, that is, as promoting social utility. As such, egalitarian principles of justice do not necessarily promote what is in the best interests of society any more than social utility considerations necessarily promote what is in the best interests of the individual. However, the application of either of these two criteria is far less controversial than is the application of any one of the latter three criteria.
It might be reasonable for people to disagree as to whether a person who is otherwise a good candidate for an organ transplant should be rejected solely because this person cannot afford to pay for the procedure and has no access to health insurance. Finally, it might be reasonable for people to disagree as to whether a candidate for an organ transplant, who happens to be a cancer biomedical researcher, is any more deserving of such a transplant than is another medically qualified candidate, who happens to be a high school custodian. Adding to the dissatisfaction that some people express concerning the rationing of human organs for transplantation, in America and in other countries, is the deference that is sometimes offered to people of social prominence.
Publicly documented in America are cases in which, for example, a prominent former professional sports figure, who had cirrhosis of the liver due to decades of alcohol abuse, was offered a liver transplant despite being, at that time, far down on the waiting list, and a governor of an East Coast state, who was offered and received both a heart and a lung transplant, again despite being, at the time in question, far down on the waiting list due, at least in part, to his age and his health status. In fact, he died less than a year later. Another moral issue that is endemic to the human organ transplant industry is the buying and selling of human organs for the purpose of transplantation. In some Central American and some South American countries as well as in some Mideast countries, for the past several decades, there has been a thriving illegal market for human organs.
More recently, this practice has spread to some European countries and even to America, when financially impoverished people find themselves in need of money for their own sustenance. Typically, such individuals are promised the equivalent of thousands of dollars for a kidney or bone marrow but find themselves at the mercy of the organ dealer for payment after the fact. Worse, too many times, such medical procedures are performed in non-clinical environments and sometimes by non-clinically trained harvesters. In the former case, questions arise concerning the moral propriety of bringing a child into the world for the express purpose of harvesting some of its body parts.
Depending on which specific organs might be harvested, the death of this newborn might be inevitable. Any such case introduces questions concerning any of the following moral issues: Is it ever morally allowable to keep the body of an otherwise brain dead person alive for the sole purpose of harvesting some of its organs? Even if the answer to these questions is in the negative, because this individual might be deemed to have the same physiological, and thereby moral, status as one who has died, does proper respect for the body of the dead dictate that this practice is morally improper? Both the retail sale of human organs and the farming of human organs continue to raise the moral issue of whether, and to what extent, human organs should be treated as commodities to be bought and sold in the marketplace legally or not and grown for the express purpose of harvesting for transplantation.
To the extent that these prospects become realities, many of the moral issues that are raised by the procurement and the transplantation of human organs will become moot. The question of who, in a given society, should be eligible to receive health care is one of the most important ethical issues concerning the provision of health care in the 21 st century. This is because of the stark contrasts that exist concerning the distribution of health care when comparing America to other nations. America is the only one of the thirty or more wealthiest nations on the planet to continue to prohibit universal health care. Universal health care, by the nature of the case, leaves out of its financing equation private health care insurance providers. By contrast, in America, these private health care insurance providers are the primary drivers of the health care system, determining who is eligible for health care insurance coverage; what particular health care services they choose to finance, and for whom, including not only diagnostic procedures but also surgical and other invasive medical procedures; the lengths of stays in hospitals or other medical facilities, for both surgical and non-surgical patients; the cost of health insurance premiums as well as financial deductibles and co-payments to be paid by their customers; the fees for services for physicians, surgeons, and other health care professionals, and the percentage of such fees that they will pay; the particular prescription medications that they deem eligible for payment by themselves and how much, in co-payments, that their customers have to pay; and many additional factors that affect both the health and the finances of those who maintain such insurance coverage.
In fact, there is a direct relationship, due to the effects of this type of health care system, between the health care and the finances of all members of society both those with health insurance and those without. Added to these issues is the fact that not all health insurance plans are the same concerning which services and procedures that they cover and which they do not, the practical effect of which is that many families with working parents do not have health insurance coverage for many important and significant health care services and procedures, or even prescription medications. Worse, a large percentage of wage earners, and some salaried employees, cannot, reasonably, afford to pay the costs of health insurance premiums, and so, have no health insurance coverage at all.
All of these facts concerning the health care system in America as compared to the health care systems in virtually every other reasonably wealthy nation in the world raise the following questions of a moral nature. Does each and every citizen of any society have a moral right to health care? If so, does the government of any society have a moral obligation to provide each and every one of its citizens with health care? These questions, by their very nature, raise the issue of the extent to which the ethical principle of justice can be realized in any given society. At the societal level, the ethical principle of justice is applicable, fundamentally, to the ways in which goods and services as well as rights, liberties, opportunities for social and economic advancement, duties, responsibilities, and many other entities both tangible and intangible are distributed to citizens.
The application of the ethical principle of justice to these questions concerning health care provides a benchmark for the determination of which types of health care systems are more, or less, just than others. While any of the methods of moral decision-making, as delineated above, could be applied in fruitful ways to such questions, it might be more instructive to apply two public policy perspectives: libertarianism and egalitarianism. Those politicians and public policy makers who are responsible, over many decades, for the health care system in America, have, for the most part, done so based on libertarian principles of justice, while those politicians and public policy makers who are responsible, again, over many decades, for the health care systems in those countries with universal health care coverage, have, by and large, done so based on egalitarian principles of justice.
According to libertarian principles of justice, citizens might or might not have any kind of right to health care, but even if they do, it should not result in the placing of financial burdens on wealthier citizens to fund, in part or in whole, the health care of their less financially well-off counterparts. Rather, health care, like food, clothing, the cost of shelter, and the costs of all other goods and services available in society, should be distributed by the dictates of a free-market economic system. Those who are wealthier, and who are able to buy more expensive goods and services of superior quality, will also be able to afford to buy not only health care services and procedures themselves, but also a superior quality of such health care commodities.
Those who are less wealthy, and who are able to buy less expensive goods and services of comparatively inferior quality, will be able to afford health care services and procedures, but only of a comparatively inferior quality. Finally, those who are financially impoverished will not be able to afford health care services or procedures at all. Under the public policy dictates of this type of health care system, the ethical principle of the autonomy of citizens to make their own choices, as citizens in society, takes precedence over the ethical principle of beneficence.
According to egalitarian principles of justice, each citizen in society has an equal right to health care services and procedures because each citizen in society has equal value as a person. Unlike most of the goods and services the distribution of which is dictated by a free-market economic system, health care is essential to the well-being of every citizen. Of course, the politicians and public policy makers, in accordance with this type of health care system, would have to adjudicate the question of whether all health care services and procedures would be available to all of the members of society, in equal measure, or the ways in which, and the degrees to which, such services and procedures would be made available to the members of society.
Under the public policy dictates of this type of health care system, the ethical principle of beneficence supersedes, in importance, the ethical principle of the autonomy of its citizens to make their own choices. The Joint Commission is the comprehensive accrediting agency for health care programs and organizations, of all types, throughout America, and has, for some time, mandated the inclusion of ethics committees as an accreditation requirement. The purpose of any health care organization ethics committee is to develop, to engage in an on-going process of the review of, and to ensure the proper application of the medical ethics policies of the health care organization in question.
Such policies would normally include such significant issues in health care ethics as informed consent, confidentiality, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment, the harvesting and transplantation of human organs, and many others depending on the specific type of health care organization. While there is a wide latitude concerning the membership composition of health care ethics committees, typically, the following professions are represented: physicians, nurses, social workers, senior administrators, risk managers, chaplains, and ethicists, in addition to lay people from the local community, among others.
Health care ethics is a multi-faceted and fundamentally important issue for the citizens of any society because the provision of health care is essential to the well-being of each person, and the ways in which people are treated, concerning their health care, bears importantly on their health status. The many moral issues that arise out of the provision of health care—from those that are inherent in the relationship between the health care professional and the patient to those associated with abortion and euthanasia, from those to be encountered in biomedical or behavioral human subject research to those that have come about as a result of reproductive and genetic knowledge and technologies, and from those concerning the harvesting and transplantation of human organs to those that stem from public policy decisions as determinative of the allocation of health care services and procedures—are perennial issues.
To attempt to clarify these moral issues by use of the philosophical analysis of the language and the concepts that underlie them is, at least in theory, to provide a framework in accordance with which to make better quality decisions concerning them. Stephen C. Taylor Email: staylor desu. Health Care Ethics Health care ethics is the field of applied ethics that is concerned with the vast array of moral decision-making situations that arise in the practice of medicine in addition to the procedures and the policies that are designed to guide such practice.
Methods of Moral Decision-Making Methods of moral decision-making are concerned, in a variety of ways, not only with moral decision-making but also with the people who make such decisions. Utilitarian Theories: Mill The preeminent proponent of utilitarianism as an ethical theory in the 19 th century was John Stuart Mill. Deontological Theories: Kant A deontological normative ethical theory is one according to which human actions are evaluated in accordance with principles of obligation, or duty.
The Ethics of Care Yet another method of moral decision-making, which is sometimes thought of as a sub-field of feminist ethics but in the early 21 st century has come to be seen in its own right as a methodology and was given birth by feminist ethics, is usually referred to as the ethics of care. PMC Department of Health and Human Services. September 28, May 16, Archived from the original on June 18, Retrieved December 7, Archived PDF from the original on August 9, Retrieved May 14, — via University of Pittsburgh.
New York: The Free Press. New York: Free Press. University of Kentucky College of Public Health. UNC Press Books. Retrieved December 22, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. January 15, Archived PDF from the original on March 28, Tuskegee Syphilis Study Legacy Committee. May 20, Oxford University Press. New York: Springer Pub. Health Promotion Practice. S2CID Archived from the original PDF on June 16, Retrieved December 12, Irwin Schatz, the first, lonely voice against infamous Tuskegee study, dies at 83". Archived from the original on May 14, The American Scholar. December 4, Archived from the original on April 25, Archived from the original on July 5, October 11, Archived from the original on October 11, Archived from the original on September 24, Archived from the original on March 11, Retrieved March 11, May 14, Medical Experimentation: The Case of Tuskegee".
Reports in Public Health, University of Michigan. Am J Public Health. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Archived from the original on August 17, American Journal of Public Health. Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on March 9, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. American Journal of Public Health: — October 9, Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
Bad Blood: New and Expanded Edition. January 4, Retrieved August 19, July 25, October Schizophrenia Bulletin. Lanham: Lexington Books. August 20, The Tuskegee News. The Pulitzer Prizes. Columbia University. Archived from the original on August 13, Retrieved November 20, ABC News Radio. Archived from the original on February 25, Retrieved February 26, Archived from the original on February 11, Retrieved July 12, Cornell Chronicle. Archived from the original on September 10, Retrieved August 4, Cornell University. Archived from the original on March 14, Retrieved July 1, NBC News.
Archived from the original on March 18, Retrieved March 18, Retrieved March 15, USA Today. Archived from the original on March 19, Retrieved March 21, Video Pushes Known Vaccine Misrepresentations". Annenberg Public Policy Center. Archived from the original on March 12, Medical ethics cases. Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital Commonwealth v. Twitchell Mordechai Dov Brody Lantz v. Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc. Free medical examinations were given; however, subjects were not told about their diagnosis. Even though a cure penicillin became available in the s, the study continued until with participants being denied proper treatment or given fake treatments and placebos, instead. In some cases, when subjects were diagnosed as having syphilis by other physicians, researchers intervened to prevent treatment.
Many of the subjects died slow and painful On the other hand, non-therapeutic research is aimed at 76 Adebayo A. Ogungbure furthering the frontiers of knowledge about human health. Furthermore, researchers and physicians often use human beings as objects of scientific investigation, raising certain ethical concerns, including the issue of informed consent and how consent is obtained, selection of participants in research, the welfare of human subjects involved in a research project, what the goals of research ought to be, and what ought to constitute proper procedure for an ethical research. These issues are central to an aspect of applied ethics which is now commonly referred to as research ethics.
The aim of research ethics is to ensure that research projects involving human subjects are carried out without causing harm to the subjects involved. In addition, it provides a sort of regulatory framework which ensures that human participants in research are not exploited either physically or psychologically. Tuskegee Syphilis Study was a very controversial research study conducted by the United States Public Health Service in collaboration with the Tuskegee University then known as the Tuskegee Institute in Macon County, Alabama between the years and A total of African American men were enrolled in the study, men with syphilis and men without the infection.
Syphilis is a highly contagious disease caused by the bacteria Treponema pallidum transmitted sexually or congenitally Six hundred poor — and mostly illiterate — African-American males, of whom were infected with syphilis, were monitored for 40 years. Many of the subjects died slow and painful deaths of syphilis during the study, which was stopped in by the U. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare only after its existence was publicized and became a political embarrassment. Congressional intervention eventually led to the publication of the Belmont Report in , which is now required reading for everyone involved in human subject research.
The Belmont Report identifies three basic ethical principles regarding all human subject research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. From this very moment, the public knew the long-hidden truth about this notorious study. Their goal was to investigate stages in advancement of syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease caused by bacterium that may cause death if untreated.
CDC Furthermore, the study wanted to investigate how syphilis affects blacks compared to whites. They hypothesized that whites experienced more neurological complications while blacks experience more cardiovascular complications. The study used poor black sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama with dormant syphilis. An additional healthy, unaffected men that were part of the study served as control subjects. Many bioethical values were largely violated.
The physicians conducting the study misled the men from the beginning of the experiment. Instead, these men were given a placebo. Physicians made sure that they did not receive treatment or help from anyone else. Four hundred and twelve men infected with the disease were selected for the study that faked long term treatment while really only giving placebos and liniments. The goal of this study was to determine if blacks reacted similar to the whites to the effects of the syphilis disease. After forty years it was discontinued and the Senate initiated an investigation of the study. In the film, the story is told from the view point of Nurse Eunice Evers, one key character in the movie, who played the role of the real- life nurse who was a part of the Tuskegee Study.
The film also unveiled the racial tension that existed in America which did not only occur in the segregation of skin color but also founded upon disease Morehan, The purpose of this paper is to analyze the film in order to critically examine bioethical The experiment was conducted on a group of impoverished and illiterate African American sharecroppers.
This disease was not; however revealed to them by the US Government.What follows Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study a look at Loneliness In All Souls By Edith Wharton of the most pervasive Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study issues that are encountered in the practice of Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study care. Universal Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study care, by the le figaro newspaper of the case, leaves out of its financing equation Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study health care insurance providers. Founded : Because participants were treated with mercury rubs, injections of neoarsphenamine, protiodide, Salvarsanand bismuth, the study did not follow subjects whose syphilis was untreated, however minimally effective these treatments Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study have been. A doctor draws blood from one Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study Human Behavior In Lord Of The Flies Essay Tuskegee test subjects. The Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study. A collection of materials compiled to Tuskegee Health And Social Care Case Study the study is held at the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland.