2. 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?
If the person would die otherwise or if it would save many people's lives, this could be justified.
4. Under what circumstances is it ethical to deny human subjects of research projects information about the results of that research?
We feel it is not ethical because it is your rigtht to know the results.
5. 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?
People who have more knowledge adn experience should have mre say than those who have less knowledge or experience.
6. 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?
Your genes should not have anything to do with your job eligibility unless it would cause harm to those involved in the job or yourself. No, it is not ethical and it does not need to used to get health care coverage.
I agree with your #4 answer. It is not ethical to not give the subject the information founded from the study on them. They have every right to know what is going on during the testing process on themselves.
ReplyDelete#4 asks under what circumstances would it be ethical, not whether or not it is. Please answer that.
ReplyDelete#5 Usually, for a hospital board, doctors, nurses, social workers, clergy, sometimes psychologists are represented. This question asks whether there should also be a representative from the general public to add their perspective on the situation. What do you think?
Mrs. LaPlace for #4 I think what we are trying to say that it is not ethical in any situation or that is how I feel. The only time it would be ethical is if someone's life was on the line and this would save them.
ReplyDeleteBut for #5, do you think that non-professionals from the general public (maybe parents or relatives of patients, maybe patients themselves, or just regular people who are willing to serve on the board) should be on an institutional review board.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that just any person should serve on an institutional review board. The people who serve on the boards should only be people who have knoweldge on what they are reviewing.
ReplyDeleteyea i agree with elizabeth. i think that people that have knowledge of the cases that they are reviewing should be on the review board. If we have inexperienced people on the board, then they might make a wrong decision that could harm others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with number 4, even though it's technically not the answer, that people should know their circumstances. It is wrong when you are lying to a patient or person who is depending on you to help them
ReplyDelete