According to the American Medical Association, clinical investigations must demonstrate concern, caution, welfare, safety, ensure informed consent, and only be undertaken to improve the lives of the participants (Baillie, 2013). The Willow Brook strain of hepatitis study violated most of these requirements. The researchers’ intention was gaining more information on hepatitis to help develop methods of immunization. They subjected the mentally disabled children without any regards to their welfare or safety, which resulted in the deaths (Baillie, 2013). The living conditions were poor; they did not explain the way the study would benefit the children or aid their living conditions. The management also continued accepting more children even after the regular admission was stopped and it was evident that they could not take care of more children. The research did not have the best interests of the children thus the willingness to neglect their living conditions and subjecting them in the study although there was no cure and no immunization was developed.
The fact that children often developed immunity does not change the unethical undertaking of the research. The researchers had not anticipated such an incident thus; it was only by luck that the children developed immunity. A clinical investigation should be undertaken with a sense of what is to be expected when formulating the research methodology. Although the children needed emotional care that the parents felt was too much to offer, the parents were not free but incompetent to give consent to using their children as study objects (Baillie, 2013). The parents needed the admission of their children; therefore, rejecting to grant permission would have led to the rejection of the children. The living conditions and safety of the children were poor yet they gave the consent, which demonstrates they did not have the best interests of their children (Baillie, 2013). They were incompetent in all ways possible by agreeing to such unethical subjections for their children. The admittance was also unscrupulous and did not have the best interest of the children because the management knew they did not have resources to care for the children. All institution needed to be were researched objects and admitting more children provided the high number of the subjects.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This case illustrates the problem of inadequate resource allocation, which is unethical. The children with the written permission of the state were excluded from the study because the state would ensure the research was ethical. The state did not account for the high rate of admission thus only provided support for the children they had permitted. This action led to discrimination of the children, which is unethical in clinical investigations and a humanitarian perspective.
Reference
Baillie, H. W. (2013). Health care ethics . Boston: Prentice Hall.
