This procedure is a way that gives a clear and logical structure that enables one to think critically through a certain bioethics case regardless of the theories and principles in issue. This paper intends to accomplish certain bioethical reasoning issues with relation to this procedure. This paper brings a discussion that provides different perspectives on a certain issue. Moreover, there is an intention of vividly bringing out the importance of this procedure in making moral decisions affecting people in the societies around the globe. This paper argues persuasively on what morally ought to be done regarding bioethical issues like clinical trials. The moral reasoning and argument on these cases in this paper follows the resolution procedure in suggesting a solution. In discussing the moral decision on these cases, a plan that involves reliance on the procedure will be in place. The procedure has seven steps with certain questions that will assist in coming up with a logical, organized and clear moral solution on what ought to be done with respect to the cases in discussion and others of the same sort.
The case involves research and clinical trials, for instance, giving placebos to children. These clinical trials and drug tests are given to children for the first time with the aim of administering its progress regarding the health of those children. These placebos resemble the drugs under testing, but do not have similar effects. This process involves the pediatric researchers and ailing children, who are used as participants in testing those drugs. The most crucial information is the administration of placebos on ailing children during clinical trials and drug tests. It is a case involves moral values and principles, for instance, non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice. Therefore, the question in the argument is whether conducting clinical trials like giving ailing children placebos is permissible morally. It is a question with two alternatives; others may argue for it during others against it. Those advocating for it might argue that it observes ethical principles like justice, beneficence and care. Those against it might argue that there is neglect on ethics like autonomy and non-maleficence. Therefore, the administration is morally permissible. These trials solemnly aim at doing good to the sick children and other sick persons from deadly diseases, hence beneficence. It is an initiative that aims at seeking a remedy, a solution that will help the sick in the society to get better. It is justice because research is done on all kinds of sicknesses without a remedy, and there is no discrimination in the administration of these trials on the participants. It shows that people care for these suffering patients and, therefore, go out of their way to indulge in extensive research and possible trials just to see the patients get better because no one will enjoy seeing them suffer.
These clinical trials might have risks on the health and even life of the participants. Those individuals against the administration of these placebos and drug tests might argue that the process has negligence on the moral principle of non-maleficence. This principle suggests that people should act in ways that do not inflict hurt pain or evil to others, including the avoidance of the risk of the same. However, risk a participant’s health or life in an attempt to save many other sick people ailing from the same is a move that many people find not permissible, it is still an important factor in the society because its main aim is to protect the lives of those people. Beneficence still prevails as a moral principle in this situation. Vital diseases are everywhere, and as Francis Crawley says on page 237, the decision affects not only the United States but also the entire world. Therefore, taking risks to save the entire world is a permissible action morally. It is also evident on page 236 that these trials have benefits. For instance, Cornell’s study on a couple, one of whom has the AIDS virus has led to the development of a possible antiretroviral. That study has enabled the clinic to provide some of the very best treatment of AIDS in the country, which has been devastated by the disease and very myriad diseases that come along with it.
Others might argue that the standard of treatment is lower compared to affiliates with the same Clinic in New York City. However, it still provides some of the best in the country, for the good of the Haitian citizens; therefore, it is morally permissible because it shows care, courage and justice to the citizens because there is no discrimination in treatment. Another case on page 239 saw the stopping of a clinical trial on a possible regimen for breast cancer. Critics argue that it is unclear whether the drug is efficient in saving lives. Dr. James Ingle suggested that the cancer is a vital disease with minimal survival rates and the prevention of the recurrence, as agreed by some of the patients, was a valid endpoint. Patients agreeing to this suggest the autonomy in them and the whole process at large. It is also an autonomous process because patients are informed that they might not receive direct benefit but might also be prevented from foreseeable harm. However, those against these trials might argue that the two are not the same and that most trial participants are randomly assigned for the placebo or drug; hence, no autonomy or justice observed. On the contrary, on page 236, it is clear that Federal regulations govern the process through which the research subjects go through in the trials. There is absolute care for the human life through these trials. Despite the fact that it is risky, it is a vital process in the life of a human. In order to deal with the issue of clinical trials, possible measures on handling the outcomes should be put in place in order to reach a clear perspective of the actual importance of these trials to the society. For instance, there should be the advancement of all priorities in the definition of a primary outcome. Critics might still argue that it is a risky process, which endangers the lives of the subjects.
In conclusion, this paper has argued, from a moral perspective on the future of clinical trials through various forms basing on moral principles. It is undoubtedly evident in this paper that the trials, despite other reducing and endangering factors is a moral and ethical process that seeks to assist ailing patients in the entire world to have better medication, hence, aiming at the good of their health.
Works cited
Vaughn, Lewis. Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
