Ethics of Patient Treatment The book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a true story based on Henrietta Lacks, who was a patient at John Hopkins in the 1950’s. Treatment of African Americans in the 1950’s was very cruel and inhuman in the medical field and was fueled by racial stigmas and socioeconomic status. In the 1950’s African Americans were also targeted because of their socioeconomic status and ethnicity to participate in medical research such as the very cruel Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Henrietta’s cells were later stolen and then sold for medical research which started a billion-dollar industry that Henrietta’s family never saw a dime of. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks brings happiness, sadness, and other times just
…show more content…
Often times doctors’ offices have long documents that must be signed in order for a person to see the doctor. Obtaining consent now a day is not as tricky and unlawful as it used to be, but most people do not know what they are signing. Lindy Marie Fields, MA; and James Douglas Calvert, PHD, MSCP are both associated with Southern Methodist University and say, “Obtaining consent continues to evolve and has come a long way since reliance upon simple consent, in which consent was presumed if the patient did not explicitly dissent” (Fields, Calvert). Patient consent has evolved dramatically, however most people still do not know what they are consenting to. There has also been a large step in patient confidentiality laws over the last forty years. When my blood is drawn at the doctors, I do not want it used in research unless I know about it, which doctors do ask now. But there is also people who say that obtaining consent of cells, will be hard because no one wants their DNA experimented on, so doctors must be tricky in order to get cells and advance medicine. DNA is constantly changing and people are becoming immune to medicine, so medical advances are important to society, but is it ethical to deceive someone, and use their cells to experiment on? It is hard to draw the line on ethics and what is better for society, but I believe in consent and a person knowing where their cells are going, …show more content…
Clinical trials are necessary to advance medicine, but where is the line drawn and what is morally acceptable? Steven Joffe, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine says, “Strong resistance to randomized treatment assignment also arose in ethical grounds, particularly in the area of cancer” (Steven Joffe). Though ethical grounds for medical research has come a long way, there was a point in time when ethics were not a thought. For example, in 1932 the Public Health Service began a study on syphilis with the Tuskegee Institute. The center for Disease Control and Prevention says, “The men were never given adequate treatment for their disease. Even when penicillin became the drug of choice for syphilis in 1947, researchers did not offer it to the subjects. The advisory panel found nothing to show that subjects were ever given the choice of quitting the study, even when this new, highly effective treatment became widely used” (CDC). In my opinion, this should never be the case because every patient in a medical study should be informed on what they are participating in and should never be misled. Clinical trials however, are a necessary evil. Without them we would not have many medicines that save lives, or help people live longer and more comfortably. It is hard to say what is right, but patients would not sign up for trials if they knew what exactly was happening,
Often times doctors’ offices have long documents that must be signed in order for a person to see the doctor. Obtaining consent now a day is not as tricky and unlawful as it used to be, but most people do not know what they are signing. Lindy Marie Fields, MA; and James Douglas Calvert, PHD, MSCP are both associated with Southern Methodist University and say, “Obtaining consent continues to evolve and has come a long way since reliance upon simple consent, in which consent was presumed if the patient did not explicitly dissent” (Fields, Calvert). Patient consent has evolved dramatically, however most people still do not know what they are consenting to. There has also been a large step in patient confidentiality laws over the last forty years. When my blood is drawn at the doctors, I do not want it used in research unless I know about it, which doctors do ask now. But there is also people who say that obtaining consent of cells, will be hard because no one wants their DNA experimented on, so doctors must be tricky in order to get cells and advance medicine. DNA is constantly changing and people are becoming immune to medicine, so medical advances are important to society, but is it ethical to deceive someone, and use their cells to experiment on? It is hard to draw the line on ethics and what is better for society, but I believe in consent and a person knowing where their cells are going, …show more content…
Clinical trials are necessary to advance medicine, but where is the line drawn and what is morally acceptable? Steven Joffe, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine says, “Strong resistance to randomized treatment assignment also arose in ethical grounds, particularly in the area of cancer” (Steven Joffe). Though ethical grounds for medical research has come a long way, there was a point in time when ethics were not a thought. For example, in 1932 the Public Health Service began a study on syphilis with the Tuskegee Institute. The center for Disease Control and Prevention says, “The men were never given adequate treatment for their disease. Even when penicillin became the drug of choice for syphilis in 1947, researchers did not offer it to the subjects. The advisory panel found nothing to show that subjects were ever given the choice of quitting the study, even when this new, highly effective treatment became widely used” (CDC). In my opinion, this should never be the case because every patient in a medical study should be informed on what they are participating in and should never be misled. Clinical trials however, are a necessary evil. Without them we would not have many medicines that save lives, or help people live longer and more comfortably. It is hard to say what is right, but patients would not sign up for trials if they knew what exactly was happening,