Cornell research activities in Haiti are unethical because they violate the institution's moral obligations, use unethical means to attract clients, and do not provide the right consent to the participants. Subjects in the Haitian study should receive the same treatment options as those in the US. In essence, it is unethical to differentiate the subjects in the two countries based on their originality and access to healthcare systems. In essence, giving the American subjects better services than the Haitian only shows bias in the treatment of subjects, which is highly unethical for the company to do. Cornell research has the perception that the little privileges it offers subjects in Haiti are better than the existing healthcare options. This should not be the case, as the organization should treat all the subjects equally regardless of their social or political inclinations (Vaughn, 2010, 278). Currently, the research facility views its engagement with Haitian patients as one-sided. They provide far-less privileges to the patients in the US. The facility only focuses on providing privileges that the patients cannot access in public hospitals. In essence, the patients are lured to the facility by the better services they can access there. It is unethical for the facility, to provide services that are similar to those in the US, on the basis that Haitians cannot access such services in their country. The facility should, therefore, conduct its research ethically, by adhering to procedures that it would follow if it was operating in the US.
The researchers should also consider proper guidance on the eminent dangers of not using condoms and other protective gear. Refusing to share such information is highly unethical for the company, which only wants to achieve its goals at the subjects' expense. Failure to offer this guidance risks the subjects' lives by increasing their risks of contracting HIV/AIDS from their unsuspecting partners. The research centre is highly unethical to risk the lives of the few patients it fails to inform of their HIV-AIDS status, under the notion that it will help more people through the research. Essentially, while concealing this information could play a crucial role in helping the researchers the dynamics of the disease, a better approach should be used. For instance, the facility should opt for the use of volunteers, by providing the full-scale risks that the patients face. Through the use of volunteers who are informed of the risks they face by participating in the project, the participants will be able to make their decisions, rather than being subjected to the dangers of contracting the disease. In essence, before participating in this project, the subjects must understand all the dangers they face and consent to such subjections.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The informed consent process is also morally unacceptable because it violates people's right to free choice when subjected to consent situations. In essence, the researchers lure their subjects to consenting by using unethical and cunning methods. The consent should be clear by clearly identifying the subjects' risks by participating in the study. The current consent form is designed to provide semi-information on what the participants are to encounter for participating in the research. In essence, the consent does not adhere to the requirements of a consent agreement. First, it does not provide an opportunity for voluntary decision-making, because it only compels the participants to agree without letting them understand the terms of the agreement. Informed consent is also morally unacceptable because it does not provide a full explanation of what the study entails as required by the US federal regulations. The consent form should have described the clinical issue under investigation and how it would be achieved. For instance, the patients were supposed to be informed how their test results would be concealed.
References
Vaughn, L. (2010). Bioethics: Principles, issues, and cases. Oxford University Press. 4(1), pp. 271-299
