How should the principle of informed consent be interpreted when the subject of a research project is newborn infants?
~The parent is in charge of the infant so they must give the consent to the doctor and scientist.
What possible outcomes would justify a research project that will have the inevitable outcome of stigmatizing the subjects in a way that may result in serious restrictions on their personal freedom?
~Possibly if the outcomes of the research project varied every time, such as, being negative or positive, the subjects would not be stigmatized.
Is it possible to design an ethical, valid research project aimed at establishing a genetic component for the predisposition to some socially unacceptable behavior?
~I think it is possible, but am not a scientist so cannot think of a project??
Under what circumstances is it ethical to deny human subjects of research projects information about the results of that research?
~Only when the results may inhibit the way people perceive the child.
To what extent should the public be represented on institutional review boards set up to approve research that may have serious social or political consequences?
~I think that the public should be fully informed on the research if it has social or political consequences because if the consequences are serious enough, it could really affect the public.
What are the ethical implications of using genetic screening in the workplace to exclude candidates from eligibility for jobs? Is it ethically permissible to use genetic susceptibility to various diseases as a basis for determining eligibility for health care coverage?
~ I don't think its right to exclude an applicant because they have a gene that can be linked to a disease.
I agree, applicants shouldn't be screened in the workplace because even though science may say that a particular person may be violent, that person may still be a valuable employee. Just because a person has an extra Y chromosome, they shouldn't be percieved as a pugnacious person.
ReplyDeletethis is very true Amanda. its like a for of prejudice!
ReplyDeleteGreat word, Amanda.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the first question, what if the parent is unable to understand the situation, or for some other reason is not able to give consent? Who, then? Can we trust the doctor? What if they have a vested interest in the research? What about a grandparent or other relative? What problems might result from that?
I don't think the guy should have been stereotyped as a violent person. He could still be a very good person.
ReplyDeleteFor this question:
ReplyDeleteUnder what circumstances is it ethical to deny human subjects of research projects information about the results of that research?
-I disagree. I do not think it is ever ethical to hold information from the subjects. If I was a test subject, and the researchers found something vital to my health, I would want to know if my health was at risk.
Although scientific studies are reliable, I don't think they should be used as a basis for a person's competence in the workplace, or in anything else; especially in a characteristic like violence.
ReplyDeleteEven though I'm sure an employer wouldn't want to hire someone who was violent towards other employees, its wrong to discriminate solely based on the fact that they have an extra Y chromosome.
Also, I think that doctors should be trusted -- I mean, as much as I love House, there's no reason to think that every doctor is going to almost kill a patient before they cure them. Especially in cases where decisions about consent are split, I think the doctor should weigh in on the options before a final decision is made.
ReplyDeleteI agree Krisha, we shouldn't trust entirely in doctors. We have to remember that they ARE people and do make mistakes, more often than we think!
ReplyDelete