Human Experimentation w/out informed consent
...elevant because consent should always be obtained when dealing with this kind of a situation. This physician did act immorally because he did not perform his duty and give Henrietta any information. Henrietta claimed that, “The physician had no right to give her anything that had nothing to do with her and her prospective child’s well-being” (Case Study). This is an absolutely legitimate claim because unfortunately this drug caused harmful side effects in the children of these women who were administered the drug. It is extremely important for the patient to be informed when dealing with their welfare. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the physician to care for his or her patient. According to number one of the Nuremberg Code, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” It also goes on to say that, “this means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent, should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, with out the intervention of any elements of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” (Nuremberg Code, pg 705). Experimenting is very important, but it should be done with individuals in a straightforward manner and not through deception. The doctor told Henrietta that he was giving her vitamins so Henrietta would think that everything is normal. She had a right to know what was being given to her because it would be affecting not only her but her baby. The reason for why she did not ask her doctor is because there is a sense of trust that is felt for a doctor. In, “A Response to a Purported Ethical Difficulty with Randomized Clinical Trials Involving Cancer Patients”, Benjamin Freedman quotes Samuel and Deborah Hellman, “The randomized clinical trial routinely asks physicians to sacrifice the interests of their particular patients for the sake of the study and that of the information that it will make available for the benefit of society” (pg 755). Physicians do indeed have a responsibility to their current patients. The physician who took care of Henrietta had a responsibility to her and her baby. He failed in his duty because he caused the unfortunate diagnosis of cancer which could have actually been prevented. The doctor who treated Henrietta obviously did not understand this unspoken relationship. Freeman also points out that, “Patients do choose physicians, in part, because of trust in their tacit knowledge and inchoate judgment, and not merely their sapient grasp of the current medical consensus. It would be a disservice to patients for a physician to see his or her role simply as a vehicle for transmitting the wisdom received from the expert medical community in all cases” (pg 758). The doctor-patient relationship is very sacred. People have an intimate relationship...