Unit - 3 Research Ethics: Human and Animal Experimentation Flashcards
Under what conditions do Roy, Williams, and Dickens claim that it is morally justifiable to use humans in scientific experimentation?
They argue that research using human subjects is justifiable when the subject makes an informed decision, when there is scientific adequacy (enough know about the procedure to limit harm), proper protection of subjects (withdrawing the subject who is being harmed by the procedures and the use of a safety and data monitoring board to review patients health), Informed, comprehending and voluntary consent, and informing the patients on randomization procedures (if such are used).
Therefore, they argue that it is only morally justifiable when the proper parameters are put in place to ensure that the patient can make a conscious decision and that the patients safety is considered (through scientific adequacy and protection measures).
Would you say that Roy, Williams, and Dickens employ a teleological or deontological approach to research ethics on humans? Justify your answer (you may find it help to consult Callahan, pages 19–21, for this question).
Their approach is primarily deontological as their primary principles of informed consent and safety for subjects is less concerned with the consequential outcomes but rather reflect a diligence towards participant’s autonomy and respect as human beings. The consequence of informed consent is unclear (except for the consequence of an informed decision) as this allows either participation or not. However, the duty towards respect of participant autonomy is constant. While, safety does reflect the goal of reducing harm, it is expressed within the paper more as treating subjects as people.
They do demonstrate consequential examples of transgressional ethical behaviors and the need to make rational decisions in the experimentation of children, so there are elements of teleology, however their principles are ultimately aligned with principles of conduct rather than the consequential outcomes of research.
Under what conditions does the Canadian Council on Animal Care think it is justifiable to use animals in research?
Using animals in research is only acceptable if it contributes to the development of knowledge that can reasonably be expected to benefit humans or animals.
Animals should be used only if the researchers best efforts to find an alternative have failed and the most humane methods should be applied with with the smallest amount of animals appropriate for observation.
Guide to the care and use of experimental animals:
- They should maintained that accounts for physical comfort and psychological well-being
- must not be subjected to unnecessary pain or distress
- Expert opinion must attest to potential value of studies with animals. Certain procedures require external evaluation
- If pain or distress is necessary for experimentation it must be minimized
- Animals in extreme un-relievable pain or discomfort should be immediately humanely killed
- Physical restraints should be used after other methods are fully considered to be insufficient
- Painful or invasive experiments for classroom education are not allowed, audiovisual information must be used instead
What does Singer mean by “speciesism”? Do you think it is a violation of the principle of equality in the same way that racism and sexism are?
Speciesism is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.
If one is to take the principle of equality seriously then yes, because the principle of equality argues for equal consideration despite faculty.
What is Singer’s “principle of equality”? Why does Singer think the principle applies to members of species other than our own? How would society’s treatment of animals change if we followed his principle of equality?
Singer’s principle of equality argues that people should be treated equally regardless of the differences in their abilities and competencies .
If society followed this principle, more consideration would go into the wellbeing of animals for the mere end of their well being. Although we realize that they do not possess the same rationality that we do, we would recognize their existence as beings and treat them with equal consideration as anyone else. This would mean we would take into account the animals interests and desires.
How does Singer employ use his principle of equality for determining when experiments using animals are justifiable? Do you find the principle plausible? Why or why not? Defend your answer carefully, making reference to the steps of Singer’s argument.
Singer argues that since a speciesist bias is as unjustifiable as a racist one, we should not do it unless the experiment is so important that we would do it on a brain damaged child. Because he does not find this to be an absolute principle he then argues that at minimum, experiments with animals should go through a ethics review board that check into animal welfare to ensure the potential benefits outweigh the harm done to the animal, but this still falls short of his ideal.
No. Singer uses the principle of equality to point towards the minimization of suffering for all beings but because humans have an active mental reality, this predisposes them to different modes and levels of suffering. Therefore, if a hypothetical experiment were to be done that could be lethal to the subject, but was of extreme importance and could limit pain towards animals and humans alike, doing the experiment on a handicapped child, even if the child did not suffer as much as the other animal subject would still cause more suffering via the damage to the public welfare of hurting a child. Although this may be considered speciesist and Singer may argue that the better option is to simply not do the experiment, the choice to not to do the experiment would then result in allowing the suffering of animals and humans alike.
What role do you think informed consent should play in research ethics involving human subjects? Do you think informed consent is sufficient for covering all cases of research on humans? Why or why not?
Informed consent should be required any time that it is feasible as it is important to respect the autonomy of the individual so they can make a completely informed decision about their health and safety will aiding in scientific research
No, because some experiments require the subjects ignorance such as an many psychological studies. Therefore, the experiment should only be done when inquiry into the damage done into the participant doesn’t exceed a certain standard such as the normal anxiety experienced in a normal day or so and the participant must be briefed as soon as possible afterwards and debriefed into the design of the experiment. Other cases where informed consent may be insufficient is in the cases of the mentally damaged or children, in these cases extra consideration must be taken into their wellbeing and their should still be sufficient attempt in providing understanding as much as possible.
Therefore, the principle of equality does not eliminate inevitable moral dilemma’s. So, when we are facing such dilemmas we must use follow the principles kernel of logic (from Bentham’s Utilitarianism) and minimize suffering. This attempt to minimize suffering would entail appreciating the different abilities to suffer between species.
