Introduction
This paper reviews the views of Samuel Hellman and Henry Beecher and their contrasting views on human experimentation. Hellman states that human experimentation is inherently wrong, while Beecher states that it was accidentally wrong. Hellman justifies his position from the perspective of patient-centered care, and against the notion of clinical equipoise. In contrast to Hellman, Beecher, justifies his position based upon past experiments, their flaws, and how to change procedures of experimentation to morally justify them. Identifying the same flaws as Beecher, Guraya, London, and Guraya (2014) discusses the importance of informed consent in medical research. Both of these philosophers provide convincing arguments supporting their opinions, however, I agree with Beecher’s view as researchers ought not to limit human experimentation because of its merits and beneficial consequences.
Exposition
Samuel Hellman offers his position against human experimentation, as inherently wrong. By this he means that changes to the practice of human experimentation could make it morally permissible. He claims that it is now possible to offer unique and specialized care for patients in the healthcare system and as a result of that, human experimentation is not …show more content…
Clinical equipoise is described as when the expert community is equally divided between the effectiveness of the standard treatment or a novel (new) treatment. According to Hellman, clinical equipoise could be the only possible way to ethically justify the scientific method of human experimentation. This is because clinical equipoise can randomly distribute each subject to either the standard treatment or the novel treatment, mirroring the scientific process of grouping each
This paper reviews the views of Samuel Hellman and Henry Beecher and their contrasting views on human experimentation. Hellman states that human experimentation is inherently wrong, while Beecher states that it was accidentally wrong. Hellman justifies his position from the perspective of patient-centered care, and against the notion of clinical equipoise. In contrast to Hellman, Beecher, justifies his position based upon past experiments, their flaws, and how to change procedures of experimentation to morally justify them. Identifying the same flaws as Beecher, Guraya, London, and Guraya (2014) discusses the importance of informed consent in medical research. Both of these philosophers provide convincing arguments supporting their opinions, however, I agree with Beecher’s view as researchers ought not to limit human experimentation because of its merits and beneficial consequences.
Exposition
Samuel Hellman offers his position against human experimentation, as inherently wrong. By this he means that changes to the practice of human experimentation could make it morally permissible. He claims that it is now possible to offer unique and specialized care for patients in the healthcare system and as a result of that, human experimentation is not …show more content…
Clinical equipoise is described as when the expert community is equally divided between the effectiveness of the standard treatment or a novel (new) treatment. According to Hellman, clinical equipoise could be the only possible way to ethically justify the scientific method of human experimentation. This is because clinical equipoise can randomly distribute each subject to either the standard treatment or the novel treatment, mirroring the scientific process of grouping each