Introduction
In science and medical research, ethics is essential in enhancing the safety and well-being of the subjects or participants. Different studies globally expose vulnerable populations or subjects to abuse, affecting their overall health. In the same case, researchers are employing diverse strategies to enhance ethics and reduce subjects’ vulnerabilities to negative implications of studies and abuse. For these reasons, it is essential to examine the factors that enhance subjects’ vulnerability to abuse and maltreatment during scientific studies. These reasons are economic and financial problems, impractical hope, improper patient advocacy, as well as non-compliance to research ethics. Contrarily, encouraging compliance with ethical principles during research would reduce subjects’ susceptibility to abuse and negative research implications.
Factors that Increase Vulnerability of Subjects to Research Abuse
Economic and financial issues are among the factors that increase subjects’ vulnerability to abuse during research. Kelly (2013) indicates that “people struggling to put food on the table and a roof over their heads” are vulnerable to abuse during clinical trials and pharmaceutical studies. Washington (2008) also notes that “jobless white men turned their noses at the disgusting work and partly pay” when referring to a perilous clinical experiment conducted in 1935 by the University of Pennsylvania. The sentiment indicates that the university conducted unethical and dangerous medical research on subjects with economic and financial problems (Washington, 2008). The phrase “when you see an opportunity to feed your starving family, […], or get treatment for a terminal disease?” also indicates how financial issues make subjects partake in unsafe clinical trials (Kelly, 2013). Thus, these studies increase the health risks, burden, disparity, and complications among subjects from developing and low-income countries as well as communities.
Unrealistic hope is another factor that increases the risks of abuse among subjects of research activities. According to Washington (2008), patients desperate for healing from diseases, surviving, living longer, and stressed about their health conditions are vulnerable to abuse during medical studies. The phrase “was described to him as his last chance at a meaningful life” shows that James Quinn was a victim of research abuse because of hoped to live a productive life after artificial heart implantation (Washington, 2008). The quote, “Do you have a choice about participating when you see an opportunity to (…) get treatment for a terminal disease,” indicates that subjects are always hopeful of improving their health after clinical studies (Kelly, 2008). This makes patients accept risky treatments or clinical trials that are mentally or physically abusive to their health, hoping to enhance their lifespan.
Improper patient advocacy and education are also major factors that increase the dangers of abusing subjects during clinical research. Washington (2008) questions how medical researchers and providers empower patients about the risks and benefits of clinical trials before treatments. Washington (2008) asks, “But are such warnings offered in a fair and intelligible manner?” The quote proves that researchers obtain patients’ consent for treatments when they are mentally, emotionally, and cognitively incapable of making informed decisions about these interventions. Kelly (2013) also agrees that healthcare researchers fail to provide accurate and quality patient information before clinical trials. The sentence “one of the most commonly cited ethical qualms with clinical trials tends to be misinformation” indicates that patients’ advocacy teams misinform subjects before clinical trials (Kelly, 2013). The wrong information affects the ability of patients to make informed decisions about participating or not partaking in medical studies.
Finally, non-compliance to research ethics and regulations among researchers also makes subjects vulnerable to abuse during studies. Washington (2008) indicates that “the informed consent process consists of much more than obtaining a patient signature on a piece of paper.” The quote implies that medical researchers are violating the informed consent ethics of research that requires patients’ participation only after knowing all the risks and benefits of a treatment. In the statement, “one of the most commonly cited ethical qualms with clinical trials tends to be misinformation,” Kelly (2013) supports Washington (2008) about the voluntary and involuntary deception of subjects to participate in their studies. Generally, violation of ethics makes vulnerable subjects partake in medical or scientific studies that harm their health and those around them.
The Solution to Reduce Vulnerability of Subjects to Research Abuse
To reduce the susceptibility of patients or subjects to abusive medical and scientific studies, adherence or compliance to research ethics is essential. For instance, Kelly (2013) suggests that continuous investigation by ethics boards on researchers violating ethical requirements would enhance compliance with research regulations, integrity, and morals. The statement “informed consent is an ongoing process of patient notification and education” also implies that continuous patient advocacy, edification, and communication before treatments and clinical trials is essential in reducing non-compliance to research ethics (Washington, 2008). Moreover, when seeing patient permission for research inclusion, Washington (2008) proposes that researchers should make patients aware of treatment risks through the phrase “the scientist must […] knows all the known risks and must inform the subject proxy.” This will make subjects decide to participate in research after knowing the benefits and negative implications on them and the people around them.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the lack of compliance with ethical research principles among scientists and the economic issues of patients make them susceptible to abuse during studies. Unrealistic hope, desperation, and inappropriate patient advocacy and education make subjects vulnerable to research abuse. Based on these, developing, implementing, and complying with research ethics is a feasible approach to reducing the vulnerability of research subjects to abuse. Therefore, patient abuse is a systemic issue in medical and scientific studies. This means that this problem requires universal or systemic solutions to achieve the desired outcome of protecting patients’ interests and well-being during and after research.
References
Kelly, S. (2013). Testing drugs on the developing world. The Atlantic. Web.
Washington, H. (2008). Medical apartheid: The dark history of medical experimentation on Black Americans from colonial times to the present. Psychiatric Services, 58(10), 1380-1381.