Introduction
The foremost issue of challenge testing, particularly within pandemic situations such as COVID-19, is the exposure of individuals to risks and unknowns. As such, in order to consider challenge testing to be ethically viable or not, researchers must first obtain control over the levels of risk. The ethical issue arises in case an infection leads to extreme examples of the condition or the presence of intolerable levels of hazard to the participants. The ethical concern within the selected setting depends on the ability of researchers to reduce exposure to risks and maximize the benefits of the study.
Discussion
The progress of accelerated testing and the introduction of COVID-19-related therapies have only become prevalent later in the pandemic. Similarly, the acceleration of therapy testing may not always be justified as therapies in particular often expose varying clinical value. Though they may not be inherently among testing participants or patients, their benefits may be insufficient in comparison to exposure to risk and prioritization over other treatment plans. However, through the perspective of the categorical imperative, it may be argued that therapies are essential for individuals that are most at risk. Therefore, the acceleration of therapy testing allows healthcare professionals to observe their moral obligation to provide treatment.
The acceleration of vaccination testing is the most debated in relation to treatments and preventative measures for Covid-19. This is likely due to the substantial issues that have arisen from lacking testing or the inefficiency of certain vaccines. Both the risk of an insufficient and absent vaccine suggests that cases of infection will increase which allows for the mutation of the virus. This could result in further exposure of individuals with preexisting conditions. As such, according to the maximum-minimum principle, there would be more ethical benefit from refraining from accelerated testing of vaccines.
In the case that drug testing reveals implications for the cardiovascular system, it is vital that testing addresses the relevant risks. Unethical conduct relates to cases in which contributing risks are not considered. As such, accelerated testing may not be considered as it provides patients and test subjects alike with greater risk and unchanged levels of benefits. Through the lens of utility, it can be identified that cases of cardiovascular issues as a result of exposure to tested drugs lead to decreased well-being. Thereby, it directly contributes to the suffering of the individuals involved and is unethical.
Based on the principle of maximum-minimum, the vaccine requires challenge testing. The principle promotes the improvement of social justice through universal systems, such as the meeting of basic needs through healthcare. As such, the challenge testing of a vaccine is vital to addressing the core issues of exposure to Covid-19. Often, social, economic, and racial backgrounds can impact a patient’s experience with the infection. The maximum-minimum perspective provides that the testing is done in order to make the vaccination more accessible.
Conclusion
Arthur Caplan’s position within bioethics is centered on the minimization of risks. It is applicable both in daily practice as well as within the medical field, particularly in testing for treatment and preventative measures (Whyte, 2022). Caplan summarizes that a lack or decrease of exposure provides benefits to individuals both ethically and medically. However, in incidents such as testing, which are not risk-free, tactics must be undertaken to have increased control over risk factors.
Reference
Whyte, J. (2022). COVID-19: Ethics and the unvaccinated. WebMD. Web.