Ethical Dilemma in Testing Drugs and Invasion of Privacy
In the course of human treatment against infections or diseases medicinal drugs has to be used. The drugs aimed to control or cure the infection, or the disease has to be tested to ensure that they serve the purpose the medicines are meant for. The medicinal value of the drug has to be put under consideration (Danniels, 2016). The drugs therefore have to be ensured that they have no or minimum side effects to the patient to prevent chances of further complications. Drugs, therefore, has to be tested to ensure they are functional and has no effects before they are set out of the manufacturer’s lab for treatment. Danniels (2016) notes that the challenge thereby lies on how to test the effectiveness of the drugs on a particular illness and the side effects to the individual. Humans have to be the test sample for the drug test, where the drugs has to be tested to a healthy individual, infected individual and finally a group of infected people. A greater challenge in the test of the drug is how and where to find the healthy willing individual to test the drugs despite the risks of side effects and causes of further infection due to the drugs compatibility with the human system.
Ethical issues have to be considered in the drug test procedures. Ethics tries to ensure the drug test process is safe, secure similarly ensuring privacy. Ethically, the use of human to test drugs is a violation of human rights. Over the years, the use of children, prisoners, and the mentally challenged individuals has been common for the test of drugs. Danniels (2016) asserts that willing yet healthy people as well as willing and infected people with a disease that the drugs are being used for has to be sought for the testing process. Although it might be a challenge, other means of testing drugs are used such as the use of animals for the purpose of testing drugs. Marrian (2014) postulates that animals as alternative living organisms for the trial of drugs help to reduce the violation of human rights such as risking lives and uncertainties relating to safety. However the use of animals to test drugs is challenging as the drugs with medicinal value to the animals may be not helpful to animals. Also, the animals may not provide similar reaction as the humans will have a similar drug (Marrian, 2014). The testing of medicines to animal also is a violation of the animal’s rights also as living things.
Marrian (2014) explains that violation of human rights is a common issue in the process of testing drugs. Testing of medicines intended for the treatment of human requires the presence of a person to be used as a sample to identify the effectiveness of the drugs as well as the side effects. Chances of risks and the possibility of further infection due to reaction with the human body makes it difficult to find a willing individual to undergo through the test process (Marrian, 2014). The hardship of finding a willing and a healthy person to test the drugs contributes to the temptation of using the individuals without the knowledge of their rights such as the children and the mentally challenged individuals. Other people under the control of others such as the prisoners provide the easier way of finding the human presence for the test. The use of children, the mentally challenged and the prisoners to test drugs is abuse and violation of human rights that’s required to be upheld. Testing the drugs to individuals without their conscious or under unwilling circumstances is a violation of human rights such as the right to life in case the drugs tested reacts with the human functioning of the body system and as a result cause death (Danniels, 2016). The challenge of finding a healthy individual for the test of drugs translates to the use of animals as the test alternatives. Similar to human the use of animals is as well the violation of the animal’s rights. Testing drugs is a risky process requiring keenness and expertise, reactions as a result of side effects or even death are the main reason behind the unwillingness of individuals to allow the test of drugs with their bodies.
The safety of the process has to be put into consideration, the safety of the drugs testers, the peoples who the drugs are tested to and the possible animals has to be maximized at all cost. Drug testing process is a procedure full of risks and safety has to be ensured at all cost (Danniels, 2016). Safety is a challenge in the drugs testing process, the sale temptation by the drugs manufacturers to make a profit may lead to the sale of the drugs before they are well tested. The drugs are therefore not safe for use by the infected or sick individuals as they are unfit for use. (Danniels, 2016). The use of animals to test the drugs may also be unsafe for the use of the tested drugs through animals to human as the animals may react differently to the drugs compared to the humans.
The use of animals to test drugs not only makes the drugs test effectiveness ineffective but also unsafe for the human use. The test of the drugs through the animals has been a challenge as the drugs tested on the animals and are intended to be used by the humans may react differently to the humans. Side effects and inability to treat the intended disease in a challenge that is experienced through the use of animals. Some variations may be observed when the drugs are used to the human such as side effects of the drugs (Marrian, 2014). Testing of drugs to animals also has a challenge as the animal’s rights are violated that may rise conflicts with the department concerned with the wellbeing of the animals. Some drugs may be unsafe and therefore, lead to variation in the animal health or also lead to death that is not an acceptable practice ethically to cause harm to a living organism.
Invasion of privacy
Individuals under the law have an actionable right that permits them to be free from invasion of privacy (Marrian, 2014). The individual therefore has a right to bring a lawsuit against a person who violates or intrudes into the complainants private affairs. An Individual’s private information should not be disclosed to the public. A false light of the individual must not be publicized under the law. Also, the individuals name must not be appropriated for other’s personal gain (Danniels, 2016).
The law in relation to the invasion of privacy ensures an individual is free from intrusion into the person’s private affairs, publicity violating the ordinary decencies, publicity that puts an individual in a false public light, and the appropriation of the individual’s name or picture for a personal and commercial use. People are therefore protected by the law to ensure that their personal information is not compromised, in their daily life activities as well as in the work place. (Marrian, 2014). However, the privacy may have exemptions to ensure that the public interests are not compromised. The existence of the immoral people in a society may lead to the intrusion into the private affairs only to monitor the livelihood of the suspected person as an immoral person under the law.
In the life different people exist, those that are good and those that are not both legally and in terms of law. The government or the security service under the operation to cub the issues of insecurity may put in place measures such as surveillance through CCTV’s aiming to observe the law breakers. However, surveillance is also a form of violation of rights to the good people such as compromise of their daily affairs (Marrian, 2014). The use of surveillance cameras and the CCTV ensures activities of people are monitored at all time by the police with an aim of detecting any issues of law breakage. The private personal affairs is thus compromised to the good people. On the other hand to the bad people, surveillance is a potent tool in ensuring that the law is observed at all times and by everyone during their daily activities (Marrian, 2014). Surveillance ensures that people are monitored at all times and every unlawful act detected as early for the action to be taken. According to Danniels (2016), people’s conscience that they are under surveillance cameras may change the way they might be thinking of doing such as conducting a criminal activity. For that reason surveillance is thus significantly important in ensuring the law is observed at all times regardless of the place, time and the location. Surveillance will ensure that people watch themselves to remain in line with the legal requirements to prevent the chances of being arrested or being taken to court in search of justice (Marrian, 2014).
People are required to remain morally upright whether in presence or absence of the law. As a person it is important to identify what is right and what is wrong. A moral person at all times regardless of the presence of the law does what is right and shun the wrong thing. However, people are different in terms of morals and their codes of conduct (Marrian, 2014). There are those people that are moral in their natural settings. Similarly, there are those people that are moral only in the presence of a force that makes them not to undertake immoral activities. Issues such as the sale of illegal drugs, rape and theft are common practices undertaken as a result of corrupt morals. Such activities can be easily controlled by the presence of the law that punishes such actions and the presence of a person to identify the persons behind such actions. The use of surveillance methodologies such as cameras will help to reduce immoral activities (Marrian, 2014). Most immoral activities occur due to the absence of a person who can see what is going on to object or fight against it. Surveillance cameras are thus important tools to ensure the immoral people are being watched at all times regardless of time, day and night in public places such as streets and offices. The immoral people can fear to undertake an immoral activity such as theft due to fear that they are being observed from a particular location. The fear will significantly lead to the change and shaping of the immoral people intentions. Surveillance thus helps to change the way people behave and intend to do due to the face they are being observed which makes it an essential moral changing tool (Marrian, 2014).
People’s health is determined by their way of live, the level of income as well as their person willingness. The use of surveillance to monitor people’s health is a breach of personal affairs. The health of people is their personal issue and need to be respected, and monitoring of peoples heath be avoided at all cost (Marrian, 2014). What people do determines their health, those people with high-income levels will have better health as compared to those will lower income level. What people eat is therefore determined with what you earn. The use of surveillance methodologies will thereby not help to ensure that people remains healthy or not.
The situation a person is in determines whether they are happy or not. Happiness if determined by the inner person wellbeing, if a person is satisfied chances are he/ she will be happy. However, moods also determine whether a person is happy or not. Is a person is satisfied with life and is in a good mood, the person in most cases is happy (Marrian, 2014). Similarly, a person may be happy only because they are in a good mood regardless of their life and financial status. If a person is monitored the situation, he/she is in doesn’t change. Is a person is either happy or not regardless of surveillance from an external person, the person condition remains the same. Surveillance thus will not help to ensure at any time that the monitored people are happy and should be avoided as it will be violating their private affairs right.
Invasion of personal is a serious requirement to be observed under the law to ensure private affairs, decency in public, publicity and the appropriation of a person’s name for commercial use are not violated (Danniels, 2016). However, despite the rights people ought to remain in line with the law by observing its requirements. The government’s actions such as surveillance have to be in place only to ensure the law is observed without violating the people’s rights.
Danniels, K. (2016). Invasion of Privacy as a Cause of Action for Public Policy Wrongful Termination. (2016). prezi.com. Retrieved 8 June 2016, from https://prezi.com/n3vojdcy1c0j/invasion-of-privacy-as-a-cause-of-action-for-public-policy-wronful-termination/. N.p.
Marrian, H. (2014). The Ethics of Physician Drug Test: Why It’s a Bad Idea | Bioethics.net. (2014). Bioethics.net. Retrieved 8 June 2016, from http://www.bioethics.net/2014/08/the-ethics-of-physician-drug-test-why-its-a-bad-idea/. N.p.