Dr. Haslet's Case Summary

I would approve the request of Dr. Haslet and the subject Dr. Beringer because she knows what to expect from the research as a biologist, she has the scientific knowledge to understand what is going to happen during the research and it would benefit the population of blind people. First of all she understands the information as a patient compared to most patients who have no clue of the information there being told, she is also a retired college biology professor meaning she is most likely knowledgeable about the research beforehand. Dr. Beringer does a voluntary informed consent in this case which means that patients are free to consent or decline treatments and that they get the information they need to make an informed judgment. Dr. Beringer
Beringers request and argue that being a research subject is not the right way to go because it’s risky and especially in this case where they have to cut a hole in the skull which is dangerous and could cause more harm to Dr. Beringer overall. An IRB member could say that we need to follow the principle of beneficence. The principle of beneficences says that we should the most good to others and avoid doing them harm. They would say this because Dr. Beringer would suffer in the long run as she would not benefit from the research. They could say she would not benefit from the research because it would take many years to even come up with technology for vision restoration. They could also say that the risk of the procedure is too dangerous to be performed on a human subject who does not need there skull opened for any reason and the procedure would only be for mere research. I would argue that this IRB member who votes against the request Dr. Beringer and Dr. Haslet would be restricting Dr. Beringers autonomy. This restriction of autonomy relates to the principle of paternalism in this case. The principle paternalism is the overriding of a person’s action or decision making for their own good. Since this IRB member would vote against Dr. Beringers request they would go against her voluntary decision to be a research subject. I would argue that she is an informed voluntary subject and understands the information being given to her by Dr. Haslet as she is a retired biology professor and is knowledgeable. She also understands the risk she is getting into as a subject and she can overcome this risk because she produce more good for people who have impaired vision and researchers as well by providing new information for new technology. Another argument that could arise from an IRB member to vote against the request of Dr. Beringer could argue that her decision to be a subject could not be the right