Skool Kid would appreaciate Help here

[Guest freaker819]

Hi all...

 

I am a senior three student from Malaysia and a representative for the school debate team. Recently, we have been posed the topic "Should Medical Research be Limited by Ethical Boundaries?"

 

I will really appreaciate all inputs both for and against this topic.

I sincerely thank everyone for their help.

 

Thank you.

[mooeypoo]

Well the entire point of Ethics is to keep our actions in control and not over use our power. Either on "lesser" beings - such as animals and pests and such, or on ourselves.

 

I'll give an example:

It's obvious a DOCTOR knows more than any other "ordinary" person about physiology and medicine, so what stops him from taking advantage of this "lesser" knowledgable person for his own research? even if that research is for the best of other people..?

 

Well what stops him is the fact that we still need order. If there weren't Ethics, there would be chaos.

 

Mind you, ethics is not a gentle subject - and sometimes it's not clear either, there are not really CLEAR rules for ethics, thats why sometimes its so debateable. However, the DEBATE is what seem to keep it in order.

 

So yes, I'd say medical research (no matter what kind!!) MUST be limited to at least SOME SORT of ethical boundries.

 

Otherwise it's not a research, it's brutality.

 

~moo

[atinymonkey]

“God makes all things good, man meddles with them and they become evil”. Mary Shelly - Frankenstein

 

There are basically two apposing arguments:-

 

The pursuit of true knowledge to the exclusion of every other factor would need the ethical boundaries to be removed. It’s much the same for most projects, focusing on the one goal with the exclusion of all other external interests will yield a more productive project. The little detractors that cause us to slow down research could be dropped and we would advance technology and knowledge rapidly.

 

The other side is that we are human, and driven by the instincts that make us human to better society and ourselves. Any benefit must balance the detraction, what use is a technological advance if it cost’s us our moral values? We are not able to balance the loss of one human life to save 10 others. Any advance must be constrained within our moral code, or at the cost of moral values.

 

That leads to the question, what makes a person a good person? Ultimately, everyone must answer for what they have done in their lives. Be that through God, Society or with themselves.

 

Your question to answer is, do you think a person's individual accountability is enough of an ethical boundry?

[Crash]

for the original question, i think it should(within reason)

[Skye]

Diffierent people have different views on ethics, and many people would be offended at some peoples ethics, so to make most people happy we impose generally held ethical principles on everyone.

[juan]

i think it should not be bounded, though doctors should know what things and actiopns are acceptable, and what are not. Many good discoveries have come out of something bad or unethical.

[YT2095]

define ethical standards and under whos determination these apply, and the question would be answerable