[Class title]
Is it Ethical to Subject Alzheimer’s Disease Patients to Medical Experimentation?
Introduction
Treating Alzheimer’s disease has been one of the most challenging tasks of the medical and scientific community since its discovery by the German neuroanatomist and psychiatrist, Alois Alzheimer in 1906 (Hippius & Neundörfer). The disease is characterized by the gradual decline of mental functions “resulting in loss of memory, thinking and language skills, and behavioral changes”. Despite the advancement in medical technology, Alzheimer’s remains as an incurable disease that afflicts both old and young. Although there are already approved drugs for the treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, it is understood that these drugs does not provide cure, but only lessens the symptoms and attempts to slow its progress. One of the major ethical dilemma that patients and their families experience in trying to find a cure for Alzheimer’s is whether it is ethical or not to subject themselves or their family member suffering from Alzheimer to new medications, particularly those medications that has not yet been approved by the food and drug authorities.
In trying to determine whether it is ethical or not to subject Alzheimer patients to new and unapproved medications for experimental purposes, it is important to consider the two opposing views regarding humans as subjects of experimentation. There are some people who oppose human experimentation. In fact, in the local, national and international level, ethical guidelines and regulations that limit the participation of human subjects to experimentation can be observed. According to scholars, the purpose of these regulations is primarily to “protect the rights of human subjects” and to “prevent the sale of drugs that lacks scientific proof of safety and effectiveness” (Feenberg 214). However, looking into a utilitarian perspective, the ethical soundness of human subjects in the advancement for the cure of a disease could not be undermined. In a utilitarian ethical point of view, the good of the majority supersedes the good of the minority (Eggleston, 452). Sacrificing an individual’s well-being for a greater good or purpose can be considered as an ethical ground for allowing people to undergo experimental treatment. For those who are pro human experimentation, lending one’s self to science can be considered as an extreme sacrifice as long as there is consent.
Alzheimer Patients have nothing to Lose by Undergoing Experimental Treatment
Although the disease is not fatal, there is a consensus among experts that people who are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease will eventually succumb to its degenerative effects and complications, which will eventually lead to death. Some may argue that it is better for Alzheimer patients to enjoy the rest of their lives while they can and just wait for the inevitable. But this is not the case so. In fact, it is observed that most victims of incurable diseases are driven by their desire to find a cure for their condition that they are willing to undergo any treatment that promises a cure (Feenberg 213). Being an incurable disease, patients with Alzheimer’s have nothing to lose and everything to gain by undergoing experimental treatment. It is only logical to think that it is better to try something new in the hope that a cure may be found than to wait for death and do nothing about it.
Conclusion
Knowing the incurable, but lethal characteristics of the Alzheimer’s disease, human experimentation for the purpose of finding a cure can be considered as an ethical act. The major ethical basis for this assumption is the utilitarian ethical point of view wherein the good of the majority is being sought after. Allowing Alzheimer patients become a subject of medical experiments provides an opportunity for patients to make a positive contribution as they sacrifice their rights for the good of the majority. Medical experimentation on Alzheimer patients is also consistent with good logical thinking. Apparently, it is better to do something than to do nothing at all.
Works Cited
Alzheimer's Foundation of America. Definition of Alzheimer's. 2016. July 2016 <http://www.alzfdn.org/AboutAlzheimers/definition.html>.
Eggleston, B. Utilitarianism. 2012. July 2016 <http://www.benegg.net/publications/Eggleston_Utilitarianism.pdf>.
Feenberg, A. ON BEING A HUMAN SUBJECT: INTEREST AND OBLIGATION IN THE EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT OF INCURABLE DISEASE. 1992. July 2016 <https://www.sfu.ca/~andrewf/books/On_being_human_subject_interest_obligation.pdf>.
Hippius, H., & Neundörfer, G. The discovery of Alzheimer's disease. 2003. July 2016 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181715/>.
National Institute on Aging. Alzheimer's Disease Medications Fact Sheet. 2016. July 2016 <https://www.nia.nih.gov/alzheimers/publication/alzheimers-disease-medications-fact-sheet>.
