Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Enzyme regulation - page 603
Sometimes while being treated for one particular disease or ailment a patient may inadvertently provide doctors and scientist with answers solving another medical dilemma. The question is who should benefit (economically) from this discovery, the patient whose body may have held the answer of the doctor/scientist that discovered it while treating the patient? Further, what ethical dilemmas could occur if we begin to reward people for simply having a biological anomaly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I believe the doctor should, no doubt, be given the credit for the discovery. But whether the patient should be given any credit at all is debatable. Can they really help what bacteria goes into their system, and would some intentionally have this happen, only to have the credit given to them, if we were to say they they would be given the credit?
Also, this could lead to patients objecting that they become "guinea pigs" for the research of doctors/ scientists.
I agree 100% with what Julia has stated. It may be genetics that allows a cure to be in someone's genetics. They never chose to have it in their body. The doctor should get all the credit, she/he was the one who knew what to look for, even if it was not what they intended to find. On the other hand, said person should be allowed the right to deny the doctor access to their body to remove the cure. What if it messes up their body for the rest of their life?
I agree 100% with what Julia has stated. If a person going to the hospital for a broken bone is found to have the answer to cancer, is it their idea to have the cure in their body? No. It may be genetics or a number of other things. But then agin, if the patient does not want her/his body being tampered with to extract said cure, they should have the right to say no to this option.
Post a Comment