Situation:

A drug designed to cure AIDS/HIV was developed; clinical trials on rats showed promising results.
However, even if effective on rats, there was no guarantee that it would be effective on people. The
scientists expected difficulty in finding people willing to be test subjects of an experimental drug, the
effects of which on humans still unknown.

The media reported about the drug. Contrary to the scientists’ expectations, some people volunteered
to be test subjects. They were willing to take the risk because they were already diagnosed to be
HIV/AIDS positive. If the drug works then they would get cured. If not, they had nothing to lose anyway.

Unfortunately, the science ethics committee opposed the use of real human beings as test subjects as it
would be tantamount to “using” people as mere means to an end. They claimed that despite those
people’s voluntary decision and full consent, it would still be inhumane.

Questions;

a. Based on Kant’s categorical imperative, would it be ethical to use people—volunteers,

specifically—as test subjects? Briefly explain your answer.
b. If you were a member of the ethics committee would you allow the volunteers to be used as
test subjects? Explain.
 In application of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives in using people or rather volunteers as test
subjects to the newly developed drug designed to cure AIDS/HIV. We must use the three categorical
imperatives used by Kant. So is it ethical to use volunteers as test subjects on this newly developed
drugs that said to cure AIDS/HIV? Would it make sense that everybody will volunteer as a test subject
regardless of the disease?

The first categorical imperative prescribes that volunteers must act in such a way that they
would will as a universal law. This implies that people who would volunteer, actions should be such that
individual would want other people to follow. When actions are based on this principle, it is then
considered ethical. In making decisions to be ethical it must be applied universally and should also be
applied to any rational being.

The second categorical imperative act in such way that you always treat humanity never simply
as means, but always at the same time as an end. Even though people would volunteer to be test
subject’s scientist should not treat volunteers merely as means because it would be inconsistent.
Scientist who involve people in risky medical experiments even though they volunteered in being a test
subject, they are simply used as means to some ends. The fact that the outcome of the study might be
beneficial to a larger number of people who would volunteer in a risky experiment is not a justification.

The third categorical imperative act as though you were through your maxims, a law-making
member of a kingdom of ends.

But as long people would voluntarily do such a thing that would be alright to make them as test subjects

Kant's theory is based on three categorical imperatives. A categorical imperative binds us regardless of
our desires. [5] For example, it is established that everyone has a duty not to lie, regardless of the
circumstances and even if it is in our interest to do so. The first categorical imperative prescribes that
oncology nurses must act in such a way that they would will as a universal law. This implies that in the
course of our care for patients with cancer, our actions should be such that we would want others to
follow. When our actions are based on this principle, it is then considered ethical. As oncology nurses,
the rationales for our nursing interventions must be universal and should be applied to any rational
being. [7]

The three categorical imperatives are the following: Act only according to the maxim by which you can
also will that it would become a universal law, Act in such way that you always treat humanity, whether
in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as
an end.