Compare Watson and Ameson’s arguments. Are they consistently applying consequential or deontological moral reasoning? Given what you read in this and the previous module, which moral principle should we apply in this case? Using real-world examples, and defend your answer.
and also comment on these two discussions 1- Watson’s outlook on why human international trial experimentation crosses the line of moral reasoning because of the lack importance of the patients consent in throughout the entire process. For human experimentation or for any procedure in the matter, a patient’s consent both verbally and a legally signed document should take place. Every patient has the right to be informed of any potential consequences or any effects that could take place before agreeing to have the medical procedure done.
Arneson only provides examples third-world countries that could not help but benefit from human trial experiments. Arneson’s examples and arguments goes against Watson’s outlook showing the beneficial aspects of conducting human trial experimentations.
The principle that I could apply in the case that there were an outbreak of pandemic disease such as cholera, or necrotising fascistic is the act of consequential-ism. If the patient knowingly wants to live then I would navigate every avenue to try to stop this disease from spreading. This is only due to the disease is a rapidly growing disease and if left untreated then the patient will surely die. However, with the slower progressive diseases such as cancer or HIV/AIDS I would let the patient choose what route they would like to take as far as treatment because there is more time allotted to make the decision.
2-Watson’s uses deontobgical moral reasoning with being against clinical trials. He states that some people are not in a state to fully understand the risks involved in the trials so therefore they are not able to fully give consent. Any one with enough charisma and a large vocabulary can influence people to do what could be potentially harmful for them. Conversely, Ameson uses a consequential view about clinical trials. He is specifically an act-consequential. He thinks that most of the ideas of Big Pharma harassing small African villages are not real. In the end, his point of view states that the success that is brought to humanity through these clinical trials will indeed help who ever is being tested more than they may have been hurt.
This argument was hard for me to pick a side. I work in the medical field so everything I do once had a clinical trial before using it on everyday sick people. So in that case I would think consequential but I can/ help putting myself in the situation. What if it was I or a loved one who is being taken advantage of in the name of science and medical advancement? After giving some thought I believe we should take a consequential point of view. Dr. Barry Marshal discovered that stomach ulcers where caused by H. pylori bacteria because he used himself as a the clinical trial. Now I don’t believe ever clinical trial should take that big of a risk but I do think if one could get someone to fully understand the risks of clinical trials then it could be safer. Also if they did not target poor or less educated populations.
Caplan, A. & Arp, R. eds. (2014). Contemporary debates in bioethics. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-4443-3714-3
