Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hemanth_Nambiar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.