Essay: Human subject experimentation – moral ambiguities

Perhaps one of the most intensely debated bioethical questions in human subject research is if the ends justify the means. In the lecture on human subject experimentation, we considered a case in the late 1980’s where two French researchers performed what can be understood as morally questionable and non-therapeutic research on a vulnerable population of children in an isolated African community with the goal to test a potential AIDS vaccine. In this response paper, I will argue that despite the unethical means by which the vaccine was obtained, had these researchers discovered and confirmed a viable AIDS vaccine though this research, it is morally clear that the vaccine should be used. To do this, I will begin with a brief background on human subject experimentation and discussion of the moral ambiguities. I will then present my argument in favor of using the hypothetical AIDS vaccine on the basis of maximizing utility and its potential to save many lives. Subsequently, I will consider a counterargument that condemns the type of precedent using the vaccine would set for future medical science. I will then conversely argue that precedent is not a strong enough reason to prohibit such valuable tool to humanity and that corrective measures can be taken to curb a pattern of unethical human subject research from emerging.
To human subject research we owe the developments of numerous vaccines, treatments, and/or strategies to prevent many devastating diseases including polio, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. However, the paths to these breakthroughs were not always paved smoothly. History has unfortunately witnessed numerous cases of deceptive and even torturous experiments performed on unwilling victims. The drive for knowledge and beneficence are two strong underlying forces behind human subject research. Humans possess an unceasing thirst for knowledge and an aspiration to learn how to act for people’s good. When humans are the subjects of research, these values become absolutely critical to balance with the ethical ambiguities of utilizing human subjects. There are certain parameters that society understands as essential to justify the use of human subjects including voluntary informed consent, risk/benefit evaluation, and documentation. These parameters illustrate how research on vulnerable persons, notably children and people in developing countries in the case of the French researchers, is especially problematic. Once morally impermissible research has been performed, it is further ambiguous if the results of this research ought to be used. Proponents of using research obtained through unethical means generally appeal to utilitarian principles, arguing that using unethical research that is of . Opponents of using controversial research often fear that the acceptance of ill-judged research sets a poor precedent. If society chooses to not reject the research, they argue future researchers will be more inclined to disregard ethical procedure.
The moral dilemmas inherent in human subject research can obviously be intense and complex. This is especially apparent in the case of the French researchers where the methods used to obtain the AIDS vaccine can be clearly understood as not morally permissible. The researchers performed a non-therapeutic experiment on a vulnerable population in an isolated location, lending to uncertainty about consent, risk/benefit analysis, and documentation. However, in this case, it is still morally clear that had they obtained a viable and safe AIDS vaccine at the time, it should be used because of its immense benefit to society and potential to improve the general welfare of many people. This argumentation in support for using the vaccine follows the utilitarian theory of maximizing societal benefit. Given the fact the experimentation cannot be reversed, moving forward the clear course of action to maximize utility would be to use the vaccine to prevent future transmission of AIDS and save many lives that would be lost to the disease. The value to humanity is simply too great to not utilize the vaccine.
Critics of the vaccine may employ a strong counterargument that argues its use would set a poor precedent for future medical experimentation. These critics would then contend that the distribution of the vaccine would legitimize the methods of the researchers. Regardless of the intention, they would contend its implementation in any respect leads to a degree of acceptance of the methods and could tempt future researchers to act on thoughts of taking unethical shortcuts. It’s no secret that an AIDS vaccine would be of enormous public health importance, but the unethical methods by which it was obtained can obviously not be simply ignored. Nonetheless, this counterargument fails to acknowledge potential corrective measures or to justify suppressing a tool of such immense value to humanity. If the results of the French researchers’ experiment were simply a small amount of additional information about the AIDS disease, it would be more appropriate the dismiss entirely. When presented with a vaccine that could save millions of lives though, society has an obligation to use it (under the assumption that the vaccine is in fact safe and accurately tested). This is not to diminish society’s simultaneous obligation to strongly condemn the research methods of the researchers though. The French researchers must be held responsible for their poor standards and punished to deter similar behavior. Simultaneously, those presenting the vaccine to society have a responsibility to clearly outline the unethical procedure behind it and act in a manner with the utmost respect to the human subjects involved. If done thoroughly, the use of the AIDS vaccine could serve to reinforce the importance of ethical procedure, and give the experiences of the human subjects from the research a meaningful and restored value.