The eager research subject one Dr. Jane Beringer’s background raises key concerns for the Institutional Review Board members either to vote for or against. Top on the consideration points are the factors that might have lead and influenced her to offer herself as a subject for the research. Importantly, it is crucial to note that Dr. Beringer may have not been sober enough to make the decision. I find it so because of her health condition and the aging factor. The 62 – year-old scientist might have arrived at this decision through frustration with life.
Having spent her better part of her life in the biology class need to be xamined both of her emotional and mental situations before the proposal is considered. Someone who suffers from an ailment at the advanced age may act out of disappointment that he or she has to adjust to a new form of livelihood. Such a position I take may, however, be disputed by other personalities who may hold the view that the pain of the aging Doctor would be ideal to help other patients and scientists come up with the solution for eyesight lose at latter days of one’s lifetime.
Others may argue that a victim of ailment would be the best individual to offer self for the exercise due to the weight of the situation nd the personal experience attached to it. Matters of Concern Diverse issues come to play when it concerns the question of life. Human subjects on research attract supporters and opposes in equal measure. Although legal and political players have their input in the whole debate, socio-cultural and religious opinions take a center stage in this subject matter.
The medics have an obligation, therefore, to analyze, evaluate and strike an acceptable balance. This acceptable balance ought to uphold other people’s rights as well as regarding the dignity of persons. The role of the caregiver must at the same time be respected as profession that is mandated to the obligation of life saving. The health caregiver must, therefore, enjoy the autonomy to discharge his or her live safer approach without interference whatsoever. Some critics who hold a different opinion from the one of mine argue that the autonomy of the medics ought to be checked.
They argue that the professionals without a supervisory body would easily abuse their role in the course of duty. They further assert that absolute autonomy has more misappropriation than the absence of the same. The medical profession embraces some compassionate aspect from time to time. This is mostly seen in the event where morality takes preeminence over the ordinary call of duty. Morality is however valued as a key virtue that would dictate the professional to act in some unusual manner in a unique situation. More often than not, medics would confront desperate situations in unique approaches.
Most of these unique situations would be found at the time they confront terminal ailments among other life- threatening situations. In the event of some of these situations, the medics ought to be decisive enough so as to take the right course of action without hesitation. Key stakeholders are equired to grant the professionals the support and the protection they deserve. These may range from the political class, the legal fraternity among other constitutional bodies. As a member of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), am tasked with the mandate of ensuring the right practices in the health institution.
Institutional Review Board Voting The Institutional Review Board (IRB) members voting for the execution of the delicate research requires a thorough scrutiny. Firstly the board ought to consider the benefits of the outcome of the research. As there are many people, who are either blind r are at the risk of age-related eye diseases. Secondly, the outcome of this venture would affect either directly or indirect a large number of the general population. The voting would, therefore, instill the verdict of a greater percentage of the present world population as well as the generations to come.
Any mistake or emotional handling of the same would mean greater consequences than imaginable. Of essence to consider is the voluntary consent of the aging Dr. Beringer, the ambitious researchers and the optical situation of the society. The complexity of the electronic intervention is also something to put into consideration. The research and the eventual development of the microcircuit electronics ought to be analyzed. The analysis would, therefore, expose the site effects and the long-term sustainability of the delicate research.
The consideration of the prevailing situation would give me the actual position as to whether this is the right way to go or it needs some amendments or may be the whole venture needs to be invalidated A Vote in Support Without any reservation, I vote in support of this research. The support for the research is due to the great achievement that is likely to come out of it. Firstly, the success of the venture would ean a lot to the blind and the general populace at large. Blindness threatens both social and economic affairs of the country.
A blind person would be less productive and thus being a liability and a dependant to the society. On the other hand if someone develops vision complications at the prime age, their dreams would highly be jeopardized. The entire team of the board members seems not to arrive at a unanimous consensus on this matter and more so to my stand to this regard. Those that are opposed suggest that the blind need to be addressed by creating other cope mechanisms that do not involve iological manipulation of the sensory system. Dr. Beringer’s consent to be the research subject appears to be an added advantage to quest blind free society.
To begin with, she is literate in the matters of biological science thus standing a better chance to understand much of the exercise. To add on this, she is blind and familiar with the pain of being a victim. Those that hold divergent views argue that the aging doctor is a frustrated person and making unrealistic decisions. There is a notion that she is desperate and lacks right counsel. Personal consent though ought to be respected as the individual in uestion has offered herself to be the research subject well versed with the consequences.
To add on this, the individual is a selfless volunteer. She knows very well that the scientific intervention will not help possibly in her days, but the people who will benefit from it will be the generations to come. Those that are opposed to this, however, claim that the woman just wants to make history to the generations to come instead of something of any help. Conclusion The challenges that are faced in the human race would be easier to manage if the persons that interact with the issues had he benevolence to manage the situations as they occur.
Researchers need to be empowered with the right legal framework so as to execute their obligations without fear or intimidations. The medics environment must be made as free as possible for the main aim of the health profession is to save life and restore total wellness of being. However, many situations may deserve different approach from others. The health worker must have the leeway to go an extra mile and save the situation. In the event that the outcome is as unexpected, everyone must be ready to accept that the media had the goodwill to better results.
