Human Testing Research Paper

Humans in experimentation: such an abstract ideal to wrap one’s head around. Movies portray such experiments with extreme dissections, and advanced technology. Experiments concluding of tests that test capabilities of humans physically and mentally, to observe how much the body reacts to such actions. Experiments that are physically painful, as well as torturous to the subject participating in the event. Many of these portrayed experiments seem quite extreme to become a reality, however there are many reported cases of human experimentation that exists within our society, to this day. Nonetheless, there are many cases containing issues with human rights, as some experiments pass the line from moral to unethical. Emphasizing the importance
The Nuremberg Code, for example, is a set of guidelines that formulate moral rights humans have that participate in human experimentation. Rights that conclude of how humans should be in experiments that “... avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.” (The Nuremberg 2) Another rule in such experiments is that Research Ethic Committees (RECs) must have involvement each experiment or the experiment is considered unethical and cannot be done. These committees provide a professional and lay view to each experiment and scrutinise each experiment to rule if an experiment is ethical or not. (Wrigley 3) This provides a sense of morality since RECs try to protect the well being of human subjects and will normally not let unethical experiments be conducted. Another group similar to RECs are Institutional Review Boards (IRB), which also validate the morality of experiments one conducts on humans by reviewing panels at research institutions. This board comprises of people that come from the professions of law, the clergy, and home-keeping which have the power to modify, approve and reject research experiments. (What 1-2) These rules ensure the safety of each human subject with specific guidelines or rules and groups protecting the well being of such participating in such
After these injections, the subjects were admitted to the actual disease to see its effects. This experiment was co-authored by Dr. Jonas Salk, who became famous for inventing the polio vaccine. (Stobbe 1) A population of mentally disabled people were subjected to experimentation just due to the fact they were disadvantaged compared to the average human being, and they didn’t deserve a say in whether or not they wanted to participate in such a practice. A vaccine that may have worked was injected to these people, then they were exposed to this deadly disease. If there was a case that this drug didn’t work, these poor people would be infected with the flu. This also shows how an inventor of a vaccine may take advantage of the vulnerable populations in a malevolent spirit just to get the results. Usually experiments like these are supposed to help infected patients with the disease already, not physically healthy