Personality Cafe banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,117 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Using a historical Case Study as an example, lets use Dr Edward Jenner(1749-1823) and Smallpox.

In 1796 Jenner performed an experiment that would be classed as unethical (the SJW's of the day no doubt went crazy). Up until this point 'inoculations' were country folklore. Jenner put this to the test, he took the pus from Cowpox Sores on the hand of his dairymaid (think coco-pops on humans) and rubbed it into grazes he made on the arm of an 8 year old boy. The boy suffered from Cowpox but recovered. Jenner then repeated this experiment using smallpox pores and the boy never got smallpox. This was repeated several times.

This experiment was key in development of Vaccines (Vacca is latin for cow).

Was this good or bad?

If bad, would the world be a better place without vaccines and why?
If good, what if the boy had died?

If this had never happened, how would Scientists/Doctors be able to prove Vaccinations without being unethical?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,160 Posts
Generally the fastest and most efficient progress ignores human ethics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,161 Posts
It's not really clear that what he did was unethical, although I imagine what ever unethical elements were present could be altered in a way that doesn't simply quash the act.
https://theconversation.com/judging-jenner-was-his-smallpox-experiment-really-unethical-54362

But to the central charge – that he deliberately exposed a young child to smallpox solely to see if his vaccination procedure was effective – I would argue that he is not guilty. What he did do was variolate the child, a standard medical treatment at the time, known to be effective against smallpox. Jenner routinely performed variolation on his patients, and had been variolated himself. He took advantage of this procedure to demonstrate that vaccination really did protect from smallpox – an experiment that changed our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation#Transition_into_vaccination
 

·
Registered
My vehicle is INFP, 9w8. Vroom vroom!!
Joined
·
1,665 Posts
I don't think ethics in medicine hinder advancements because there are always those who work outside ethics. A code of ethics keeps the whole system from being seen as corrupt, but very important learning does come from "mistakes." A code of ethics can be used to turn horrendous procedures into reformatted procedures that can be of use to society. We have ethical experiments and unethical experiments at out disposal.

Working in medicine from an ethical standpoint may inspire someone to do the "right thing" for someone else.
A person has terminal cancer, and they will die—but it's wrong to just end their life. So doctors try to treat them with anything they can think of, and maybe they'll find a treatment that works. Then they might be able to save someone else with the same problem.

Another thought, Nazi doctors and scientists in concentration camps performed highly unethical things(to us). I don't know of any advancements from them that we use today(but there could be), and they worked outside ethics. No one bought into what they were doing on the outside because of an ethical gap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
266 Posts
I think there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. You have to experiment to gain medical advancements and save lives, but the Nazis are a perfect example of those who crossed the line. Technological advancements often lets us run simulations without live test subjects now until it's virtually proven to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,128 Posts
Ethics absolutely hinders advancements. 100%. Everyone knows this. There are so many things we could do and learn if not for ethical issues
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top