Jill Fisher finds it problematic that when companies recruit human subjects, those subjects are not properly informed. The reason is that they already go into clinical trials with consenting attitude, so it leaves no room for giving an informed consent. Fisher raises the arguments from feminist bioethicists for human subjects to participate more actively in the research. The commercials definitely do not give potential and willing subjects the knowledge of placebo test, potential risks, and the logistical burden. These commercials endorse the idea that chronic illness like depression, insomnia, arthritis, etc. is socially stigmatized, when they do not have to be shameful problems. The ways the recruitment commercials reflect how the nature of illness and the benefits of trial participation are unethical. The subjects must recognize both the benefits and risks in order to be able to withdraw from the trials. They must also be compensated for the period of non-treatment, because if they are given placebo drug, their conditions may get worse. The commercials heavily emphasize only on the benefits of participation, and they especially target mothers/wives who regularly take on health care of the family. The commercials attract the human subjects manipulatively, and the subjects are exploited without being aware of their exploitation. They are also usually in a socially vulnerable place that trials are one of the few viable options to get expensive medications. Therefore, policy makers would be interested in ways to reduce the emphasis on consent culture and more engagement on the subjects’ part, because companies are able to make subject be already consenting to whatever for which they are signing up.
Prozac Time | Life O… on Prozac & Sarafe- Identical… shitangshuroy on What Constitutes ‘Genuin… shitangshuroy on Further Ethical Issues in… 14 to 40 percent of… on Publication bias shitangshuroy on Should Pharmaceutical Advertis…