The world of medical testing is a slippery slope when it comes to the ethical side of things. In many ethical manuals, the main aim of any experiment is to not bring any harm to any human being. That is the basis of ethics and the driving force behind it. This raises a rather thought provoking question: Whether or not it is ethical to allow human trials of drugs even if they have been tested on animals and had few negative side effects? Should the chance of harm to humans outweigh the possible health benefits of the drug? This question continues to plague many researchers even after years of thought into this. This paradox is created every time a new drug comes out of animal trials. The main question that needs to be asked is what is the lesser of the two evils between these two concerns?
I don’t know if there will ever be a simple solution for this conundrum. As a society, we are always looking for a quick cure for everything, which creates this problem of needing to test drugs on volunteers before they are released to the masses. This raises the question of even if these volunteers still agree to the side effects of these drugs, does that make it anymore ethical? Does it actually make it okay to test on humans drugs that may actually put them in pain or discomfort even if they agree for the benefit of the rest of humanity?
As I stated earlier, there will be no easy fix for this, as we will always have a big pharmaceutical culture in our society. As long as people still keep getting sick, there will always be a need to test drugs on animals and humans alike.
The Weekly Blog 
Ethics seems to be one of the most complicated and toughest controversies out there. There are so many different beliefs about morality and ethical principles that it makes it difficult to come to a conclusion. I completely agree with you when you say that there may never be an answer/solution to these problems and questions. I think that if the volunteer knows all of the possible side effects, then they should be able to test the drug, as long as these are not extremely intense life threatening effects. People receive tattoos that are painful and drink alcohol that has side effects; and these are the individual’s choice. If people choose to drink alcohol and receive these side effects, why can’t they volunteer to test out new drugs if they personally chose to make the risk themselves?
LikeLike
I completely agree with you in every way- there will never be a simple answer to the question of when/what/how/who drugs should be tested on. When it comes to testing animals, it’s unfortunate that some have to go through unpleasant or even deadly side effects, of which those news stories are usually kept quiet. When it comes to testing drugs on humans especially, it’ll always be a matter of ethics. By looking at the results of drug tests on non-human animals, I would think that the decision would be clear whether future trials should be run on human participants or not. If there were no side effects, after multiple trials, I’d think that it would be more acceptable to then allow human trails to be made. That brings in the second part of your argument, of whether or not these human trials should even be done. I think in situations like this, where the drug has been proven to be safe, informed consent should be sufficient. It’s a difficult situation, but if tests on humans were never done, we wouldn’t have the medications we do now.
LikeLike
I would have to agree with you on an ethical perspective for sure. To answer some of the questions you posted in your blog, I think ethics have come a long way. For example, there have been many medical procedures that definitely violate human ethics. The ice pick lobotomy is one that comes to mind, especially since it was not that long ago that these kinds of procedures took place. I agree with Christine in the first comment that if a person consents to the procedure with the acknowledgement of what may happen to them, why shouldn’t they be able to make that decision? In this day in age, I feel like medicine is at the point where patients should be educated in what they are putting into their bodies while knowing the potential risks. I think the benefits of medicine and ethics usually balances out the costs and many lives have been saved through being able to test on humans. Furthermore, medical testing on humans takes place to make positive impact, yes, there are potential risks, however those risks are what influence changes in how medicine is improved throughout the process.
LikeLike
Hi Koleton!
I completely agree with your comment that we are always looking for a quick cure for everything, especially in the medical field. Which I mean, I can understand. It puts people out of their misery and distress when they thought they had an incurable disease, and now there’s a new medication out that can cure them! It makes them happy, optimistic, and excited that their disease no longer dictates who they are as a person, or is even a part of their identity. I can see how this notion is extremely appealing to a person, and a researcher.
But I do agree with you on the ethical side of things. It doesn’t seem right to let people go on drug trials when there is the possibility of some serious negative side effects. But I also agree with the commenters that, if those people voluntarily agree to participate in an experimental drug trial, they should be allowed to take that drug.
This loosely reminds me of a class I took a year ago, in which we had a unit on the negative side of pharmaceuticals. I remember learning about how some pharmaceutical companies were handing out incentives to medical practitioners, in order to promote their new ‘drug’ to patients who had medical illnesses (Campbell, 2007). So the practitioners would tell their patients about this wonderful new drug, and how it could benefit them, or that they were the right fit for this new medication. So maybe the voluntary actions of the participants in drug trials have false beliefs from their doctors or psychiatrists, which lead to their consent in the trials. I’m a little off topic, but it’s just some food for thought. This notion though, brings us back to the part of your blog where you note that our society relies so heavily on our pharmaceutical culture. I completely agree, and I think that we will always be heavily reliant on new medications, drugs and the repercussions that come along with it.
Campbell, E. G. (2007). Doctors and Drug Companies: Scrutinizing Influential Relationships. N Engl J Med, 357, 1796-1797. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp078141.
LikeLike
I think there is a few bigger underlying issues here beyond the morality of it all. I mean when we question the ethics of testing on humans we also have to question the very ethics of testing on animals in the first place. At what point does research become important enough to harm any living creature, especially ones that not only feel pain but can anticipate it. Is it okay to test non-essential drugs that will make pharmaceutical companies rich while not curing people on animals? The commodification of healthcare is one of the biggest driving forces behind the development of new pharmaceuticals, maybe thats where the real issue in the ethics of research is. Think of every new drug all being developed with the sole purpose of treating an illness but not curing it, are all of these drugs worthy of being produced? Are they worthy of harming animals or humans? I hope this comment doesn’t seem to pull far away from your post, I’m simply exploring an underlying issue of ethics in drug research that I feel is the cause of so many negative side effects to a large body of both humans and animals. If the drug showed serious promise in curing cancer/aids/M.S/etc , if big pharma actually cared about curing serious illnesses, then I feel a certain degree of harm to animals and humans would absolutely be worth it especially in the case of consenting humans. However, since the truth is drug production is a money making industry rather than an industry with an actual focus on healing people the current amount of harm being done in drug trials is un-ethical. In my opinion that is.
LikeLike
I agree with the notion that ethics is always a messy subject. What makes something ethical is a constant debate, however I feel as if the medical system does the best job they can with the information and standards we have. New ideals, values and thoughts are always coming about which call for a change in ethical procedures and policies.
Ethical standards are put in place to ensure, or at least attempt to, human safety when it comes to drug trials. The reason drugs are first tested on animals is to first see the effect as opposed to placing human beings at risk. I strongly believe that when testing any sort of drug it should be done on the creature of least significance like rats as opposed to chimps. While the word significance is harsh i only use it because the actual term is escaping me. Drug trials
LikeLike
(My comment was accidentally sent before I finished, here is my complete comment)
I agree with the notion that ethics is always a messy subject. What makes something ethical is a constant debate, however I feel as if the medical system does the best job they can with the information and standards we have. New ideals, values and thoughts are always coming about which call for a change in ethical procedures and policies.
Ethical standards are put in place to ensure, or at least attempt to ensure, human safety when it comes to drug trials. The reason drugs are first tested on animals is to first see the effect as opposed to placing human beings at risk. I strongly believe that when testing any sort of drug it should be done on the creature of least significance like rats as opposed to chimps. While the word significance is harsh i only use it because the actual term is escaping me.
Drug trials themselves have many ethical standards in place. To address your question as to whether humans should be allowed to volunteer for drug testing I believe the answer is yes but under very strict ethical standards. Testing on animals first minimizes the risk for humans which is why it is done in the first place. The fact that we do not first test on humans is very important and, I believe, way more ethically sound than testing on humans first. The process of applying to be a volunteer, approval and the testing itself should follow a universal policy created to ensure minimal risk as well as outline what the process would be if such a risk were to occur. A protocol should be put in place, as I am sure there already is, in order to ensure that human trials run as smoothly as they can, minimizing risk while creating a procedure to follow if significant harm were to occur.
I agree with those who have commented above me that if people make the informed decision to volunteer then they should be allowed to do so. However, their eligibility should be assessed with a universal protocol as I have suggested above.
The main thing that this has me thinking of is utilitarianism. Essentially this is a viewpoint that believes in the greater good. The most utility for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians would agree with human drug testing because the discomfort or pain administered to a few in order to save/assist the human population would be deemed morally necessary. So this brings about the question of whether you believe in utilitarianism or not. Do you agree that it is morally required to sacrifice the utility of a smaller group of people to maximize the benefit for a larger group of people? Furthermore, does this mean that a protocol that may disallow some to volunteer for drug testing would be considered morally wrong?
While I am on the fence about whether i agree with utilitarianism I think that some form of a protocol would still be more morally permissible than none at all. If there is no protocol in place there may be even more people that would suffer unnecessarily than those who would be approved for human testing. The greater population would still benefit from a smaller, approved group of human volunteers than a larger group, that would produce the same outcome, but with more dis-utility than with a smaller testing group.
Ultimately I agree that there are many factors at play here and that ethics will never be an easy topic. However, while you pose the question whether humans should be allowed to volunteer for drug trials you never actually choose a side. I am curious to know that if you were to choose, regardless of the difficulties involved in the ethical debate, do you believe humans should be allowed to volunteer or not?
LikeLike
I think I took that class as well Danielle! That was a very interesting unit to look at the other side of pharmaceuticals and what we think is in our best interest may very well not be. In relation to medical testing, I feel like the same scenario could happen. I am sure you remember from that class when our professor was talking about medical studies being created and only the positive results being published for the benefit of the new drug coming out. If this is the case , I don’t feel like it is enough of a justified reason for people to volunteer to be tested on. They would be under the false idea that the drug has no negative side effects when it actually could be very harmful for them in the long run. I think that the example given in class was Zoloft (correct me if I am wrong). This drug turned out to be very harmful when all the “studies” behind it said it was safe for human use. This kind of leaves me feeling a little pessimistic about who to trust when it comes to these trials and studies.
LikeLike
I definitely remember that! I can’t remember the exact drug either. Another pharmaceutical drug that surprised me was Sarafem, and how Sarafem was literally Prozac in a disguise of a pretty sounding name and a pink/purple pill. I’ll link a video to a short commentary about it. It surprised me that medical practitioners were distributing this drug to women who were suffering from extreme PMS (which is called PMDD). Prozac is a widely used drug nonetheless, but I feel like these women were given this drug without the proper knowledge of the side effects, which I believe is extremely unethical.
In regards to your question Brenna, about a protocol for volunteers, I believe that it isn’t morally wrong to disallow some volunteers from participating in shady drug trials. If we know that the drug has serious negative side effects, I do believe it would be morally wrong to administer it to consenting participants. The further I read into your utilitarianism debate, the more I feel like I shift back and forth though. I agree with your notion that if a small consenting group will essentially “take one for the team”, or the greater good as you say, then it may benefit everyone. Many medical discoveries have come out of drug trials, and as I stated in my previous comment, it may make the person who thinks they have an incurable disease, be the happiest they’ve ever been knowing that there is a cure. I am on the fence with this topic.
LikeLike
I forgot to add my reference:
Sosc3315. (2006, October 17). Sarafem [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3xqCtDdNNQ.
LikeLike