Shen 1

Leo Shen

Joshua M. Wood PHIL 009

Biomedical Ethics

7 December 2021

The Misuse of policy

Many of the current medical policies that are used throughout the world are based on the

one corporation which we are known to be called the World Health Organization. Within these

groups of individuals, they have also a smaller council of experts that take the responsibility of

creating specific policies mainly affecting those in this case the voluntary action of testing a drug

for scientists. I believe that drug testing on human subjects is not even remotely right in the

slightest sense that there is no real way of showing any true proportionality between the value of

a human’s life and drug testing or money. These types of issues are seen throughout the multiple

stages of drug testing since most of these drug tests are only in the form of humans. Even if

drugs were completely safe for humans. In the case of Emanuel as well as his other contributions

with other scientific experts, they believe the idea of “reasonable availability” whereas in reality

the thought of making it a necessary value to these individuals so that they could get the

medications, surgeries, or any sort of medical benefit for their health. This goes the same in the

eyes of Oranthlecher where the phase drug trials of the first and second shouldn’t be irreverent in

considering if these were part of the results when only looking at the third trial. These drugs have

had a major effect on the idea of testing on humans who are legitimately voluntary for the benefit

of themselves.

There are numerous ways and ideas Emanual continuously proceeds to convince many

other health experts that the process in which these new drugs are mass-produced after the fact is
 Shen 2

within the testing of three phases especially from the C.I.O.M.S. (Council for International

Organizations of Medical Sciences) creating laws for the W.H.O. (World Health Organization).

These groups of individuals have created the policy in which the “reasonable availability” for

each test subject in this case are humans, are not equitably valued because within the first and

second tests the results could have been false or just not a benefit for us humans. The time that

was used in those studies was just to come up with a fault result and not only does that not

benefit the voluntary testers, it's also showing signs of exploitation even if any form of

compensation is given to those that agreed to test the drug. As an example, the host countries that

are involved in drug testing are in turn made to be sure that this specific drug has its safety limits.

In other words, the first two phases of any form of drug testing are always put aside from the real

results of whether the WHO can agree to mass-produce this certain drug for more financial

purposes or to help those in need of this specific drug. Although the third and final drug tests

ultimately tell if this drug could potentially be mass-produced or done for the rest of existence.

This is still an unethical way to perform a drug test in the sense of humans being the test subject

even though they are being presented with benefits that are given to them. As more and more

individuals proceed to take this idea of having a proportional trade between finance and their

organs more testers will be willing to give their lives just for the treatment they are in desperate

need of.

Despite the fact, there are the benefits of individuals to whom that would ethically prefer

this to happen. It's still in the argument of this leading up to the end which is a harmful way of

going about the drug testing. This is true for developing countries who are once again on the

poorer side of the financial things. This could in the end negatively affect those who are already

in a dire situation with their health. So their only solution would either be to use their organs or
 Shen 3

entire body just for the sake of tests so that these “benefits” will affect their health as a whole in

the long term. These types of actions are signs of exploitative activity in the sense that it’s not

seen from the outside point of view that Oranthlecher wanted us to see from the very beginning

of these agreements that testers take to get the necessary medical attention they would need. For

instance, the argument of having to trade your organs for some form of funds or another

individual’s transplant. In some cases, these are the absolute necessary options left to do in this

situation but for other cases where you don’t need to trade your organ such as the most common

one the kidney, it’s imperative to process these decisions for one’s benefit. This would potentially

be left for the scientist and the individual to choose from their free will whether this could be a

great advantage to their health but, at the same time, it benefits the scientists at even more

advantage. Even the smallest group of distinct people also could have a possibility of becoming

exploited without the knowledge of knowing it happening while giving the positive benefits of

what you could have. In the case of a small country, it could be heavily affected throughout the

entire place if a more wealthy country just simply took this opportunity to take advantage of the

less fortunate and not as fincacled as they should be for the reasons they are about to use their

organs.

At long last the end of this entire discussion the uses of humans in these trial tests have

proven not only the reader like myself but as well as other experts in this realm of scones that the

argument of having no way to explain to these individuals what their best choices are. Since

these choices are made directly from their free will which means that no human could make

choices for another especially when situations like the poor have no choice but to struggle and

keep living their lives the best as humanly possible. In the end, we all make the choices for
 Shen 4

what’s best for ourselves. This goes for every other human out there with nothing left but their

bodies for money.

 Shen 5

Works Referenced:

●Global Health and Global Health Ethics, edited by Solomon Benatar, and Gillian Brock,

Cambridge University Press, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucr/detail.action?docID=647365

○Created from UCR on 2021-12-6 09:01:13.