The Instigator
Krafty14
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Luisdesu
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Drug Testing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Luisdesu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 629 times Debate No: 52102
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Krafty14

Pro

Drug Testing has its perks. Through drug testing, the patient may be able to gain access to new treatments. If you have a condition that does not have a medicine available, then you may gain the availability to a newer drug for that condition. The National Institute of Health explains how drug testing can provide the help your condition requires through the newest treatments, before they are widely available to the public.
The NIH says that the premature availability of advanced medicine means that, granted that the treatment works, you could be among the first people to benefit. Drug testing makes it possible for a person's condition to be attended to earlier than other people's conditions.
If a new treatment is not provided to you through drug testing, NIH explains that you may be provided with the "current standard" of medicine for the specific condition. This means that you will be compensated with the best available treatment/medicine for your condition.
Luisdesu

Con

In your argument you explained that people may get the best treatment. Meaning there is no guaranteed benefit to putting your life on the line. Even though there are precautions to drug testing testers do not always follow those lines. Drug testing is like a gamble you may be benefited by it or you can get nothing out of it and or die. Now even though it is a slim possibility it can still occur.

With drug tests on people we can never fully predict if the patient will live or die from the new drug. There is always these unknown dangers of these trials. Helen Anderson states that, "International clinical trials often violate the principle of justice by conducting experiments on foreign populations." This here is already unethical because scientists are testing on people that may only have a 3rd grade education. Even if they were to give them consent there is no telling if the person even understood what they were explaining to them. This will set them up it tests with very little health care after words.

For those inside America there are still potential dangers and corrupted testers. According to Rutgers.edu "There is so numerous Americans, and is hard to monitor that it is too easy for researchers who are arrogant, reckless or just plain sloppy to harm people." So not only is there the danger of the body not responding the way that may want it to but there is also the danger of the person giving the test. The tester should always know what they are doing and shouldn't get bored with their jobs. There are those people out there and we really cant stop that danger.

Discovery.com explains that many participates often are serving as their first time and could lead to discomfort to permanent physical damage or to death. Just like any drug is bad for your body you don't know if it will harm you the first time you try it or the thousandth time you use it drugs are bad for the body.
Debate Round No. 1
Krafty14

Pro

In your argument, you proposed the possibility that the patient may or may not survive from the given treatment. You also said that drug testing could leave a patient with permanent physical damage, that drug testing is unethical, and that there are corrupted testers.
The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics explains that a person involved with clinical drug testing plays an active role in their own health care. This benefits the individual because they get to make their own decisions with their health care and everything that surrounds that situation.
The UIHC states that a patient of drug testing not only helps themselves, but helps people in the present and in the future. Knowledge excavated from drug testing allows for scientists to create newer medicines that would help with the specific condition.
The UIHC explains that through drug testing, a lesser number of side effects may be observed through the patient. The advanced drugs being tested are created for a better purpose in mind. This means that scientists look at what other drugs lack and make a better drug, with less side effects.
Luisdesu

Con

Side affects are different for everyone. One may experience headaches while an other person can take the same drug and experience muscle twitches. No same drug can have the exact same side affect for different people. They may all have similar immediate effects but the longer it is carried out the more side effects that may be seen.

If a patient dies from these trials should the company that ran the research be charged with murder? Abroad many trials occur there instead of in America many because the countries don't want to acknowledge that their people may die. So for that reason much research happens in India or in Africa because they cant be charged with murder. According to the Bing dictionary murder is "The crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense." Now you may say that if someone dies because of a trial it is because the past conditions the person was in. But if that was not the case who is to blame? The research is being conducted deliberately to learn more about a certain drug. So therefore should it be a crime because there is no reason for self defense other then to fight of the infection.

In estimate over 100-500 patients die from clinical trials. The people doing the trials should be held responsible for these people who have lost their lives trying to advance our medicine. Mercola.com states that "India is a popular place for drug clinical trials. More then 2,000 Indians have died in trials." The people the patients are leaving behind have no way to make money any more and they may soon be in poverty. So I say that the companies performing the trials should at least help those families that lost someone because of them. Or in extreme cases they should be held with murder at most.
Debate Round No. 2
Krafty14

Pro

Death caused by drug testing can be blamed on both sides of the test. A tester can easily be blamed for the death of a patient, because he/she conducted the test. The patient has a say in things, as well. Obviously some testers may false-inform a patient about the tests' credibility, but that is in some occasions. Formal clinical testing companies require strict eligibility factors before performing the tests.
The idea behind a clinical trial is to enhance a patients life conditions, not make them worse, and there is no intent of murder or death by the tester or test itself. ClinicalTrials.gov explains that one reason for clinical drug trials is to improve the "comfort and equality" in life of those who suffer from a chronic illness or condition. An actual clinical testing company has nothing but good intentions when conducting trials on patients
ClinicalTrials.gov supports the idea that patients have a say in whether or not the test is conducted, because it says that a patient is given information on the trial that helps if that individual still would want the trial to continue. The patient has the right to go through with the trial or not.
Luisdesu

Con

But for those who haven't given their consent to the research yet they are still being tested on who is to be blamed, honored and paid? When people sometimes hear what they are being tested for they wont fully understand the big words are the concepts that only people who went to school would know. Many of the people that volunteer do it for some quick money and maybe they're going in without the full knowledge that they are suppose to. Yeah the people overseeing the trials my given the knowledge by verbal or document sources. But who really knows if the person was even paying attention during the briefing.

Is clinical trials a job or is it an act to further our knowledge about the drug. Volunteering is the act of doing something for nothing or without pay. Or is putting the life of others in risk a job because people who "volunteer" get paid anywhere from 100 to 300 each trial. Like that is good pay for something done once but often then not they patient has to come in more then once. Each time the risks may be higher with more and more chances of side affects. A story in wisebread.com talked to friends doing a clinical trial for extra money during school. And during the trial they were not allowed to talk to anyone and both of them had major head aches and were throwing up. should there even be pay for those who want to better our knowledge. Because you even said that these trials are meant to help the people with great illness. Should those who have a greater risk of dying be paid more then those who are doing a less likely chance of dying trial? Is science a greater concept then life that we have to pay those who may dye. Or should the family be paid? If the family is to be paid then the money given should be greater to help benefit the whole. As it stand according to mercola.com only 22 out of 2,000 families are paid abroad and the people in America are only paid per trail.
Debate Round No. 3
Krafty14

Pro

Of course, with any experiment there is a risk. Even with professional surgeons or doctors, there is a possibility of a surgery or procedure going wrong or something bad happening. Of course, when someone is incorrectly briefed about a procedure, they could be signing up for something that they misunderstood. This can be prevented through a thorough evaluation of the patient and a mandatory recollection of what the patient is abut to agree to.
The National Cancer Institute explains that informed consent is the process in which the patient is briefed with important facts about the clinical trial that they may OR may not agree to. I have used a similar point before, but for the sake of the argument, I say this again because of the level of self-awareness that must be present when agreeing to a drug test of a serious caliber. If a serious, potentially high-risk procedure is being considered, it would take someone of some sort of education to accept the test.
As an extended protection of a person's rights, NCI explains that national as well as international policies and regulations have been developed to ensure that the trials being conducted are done so to follow strict scientific and ethical principles. This can translate to the education and awareness of the patient. Hopefully the patient would not go to for a clinical trial and not know what it is that is going to be tested on them.
NCI gives the information that many organizations such as (NCI) the National Institute of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veteran Affairs all sponsor and conduct clinical trials. These organizations are all very dependable and respectable programs that serve to better the population. Clinical Trial organizations like these would not want to put their clients in harm's way, but rather to protect and help them.
Luisdesu

Con

Well I understand that many organizations try to help those in the trials and keep them as healthy as they can. But they cant stop those who are hardheaded and don't fully want to understand what they are putting themselves into. Many will die from these kinds of trials. There should be trials on how to replicate the bodily functions. This can be helpful so it can reduce the amount of people used for drug trials.
One of the most known cases in drug testing is the trial of Henrietta Lacks. Lacks at the time was dying from cervical cancer. During her stay at the hospital the doctors snipped some tissue from her cancerous tissue. There are many controversial topics about this trial. But as the organizations were making money from Lacks without her even knowing should be considered an act of wrongness. Her family after she died didn't even know about her trial until twenty years after she died. The organizations gained millions of dollars from the research they did with Lack's tissue. As it turns out her family never got anything. Much of the family needed health care and even then they were not given it. My point here is that is it right for people to do tests on people even though they are not aware of it. The organizations in America may have drug tests locked down but for those out side of America being tested on. Like during the World Wars many drugs were tested on people. Like the Germans conducted many trials of innocent people should the findings be credited to the people or to those who conducted the experiments. Those who contributed to the findings of something major should they be given money or at least credit. Think of it as a movie because in the credits they give credit to the main actor to the actor that just popped in screen for two minutes. Just as those who volunteer should they be given anything or should they just be brushed aside?
Debate Round No. 4
Krafty14

Pro

Testing on humans bring a lot of negative attention to clinical trials. The unethical aspects of testing on humans are, well, unethical, and therefore make the trials themselves look bad. What about testing on animals?
Alzheimer Europe talks a little about animal testing, saying that testing on animals is sufficiently similar to testing on humans. This allows for testing of drugs that may be of a higher dosage or that pose a more threatening effect.
The US Department of Health & Human Services says a little about clinical testing on inmates. This idea takes individuals that are seen as menaces to society, and undergo procedures on them that is seen as unethical. This poses a newer resolution to even animal testing, perhaps.
Luisdesu

Con

Well it seems that we both have similar thoughts but going to the same destination on different views. Animals aren't meant to be "used". Even though there are many more animals out there then humans. Drug testing on animals should be taken as unethical as human testing. Thomas Hartung from Johns Hopkins University states, "that we are not a 70 kg rat." Meaning there are many similarities like the bodily functions but the side effects could be completely different from human to animal. Another thing is that the dosage that is lethal to an animal will most likely not be lethal to a human. ProCon.org helps my stand on how there are already corrupted testers on humans who is going to stop people from overdosing a rat with the drug they are testing. Peta.org states, "Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country." There are already enough animals being used for other research why must we put millions of more animals into drug testing. Not only is there the problem with the animal being used for research on a certain drug but what about those who are against animal testing? How don't we know that once we start testing drugs on animals people who are against animal testing wont use that drug. Then there goes a lot of research for those who don't want to use it. We have rights just like animals should as well. A major religious problem with many is that we are killing many animals and we are not using the body to the fullest. Mainly because the drug is all over the animal that it may not even be safe to eat anymore. So drug testing should stop and really people just need to toughen it up and let the immune system fight off the disease for them.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 2 years ago
Hemanth_Nambiar
Krafty14LuisdesuTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost this debate in the first round itself when con introduced that point on drug testing being akin to murder on certain occasions. After that argument was introduced, pro floundered around, tried to evade it and then ultimately tried to write it off as an "a rare occurrence" instead of meeting it head on.