New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

PHL 116 Week 5 Notes

by: Mikaela Holley

PHL 116 Week 5 Notes PHL 116

Mikaela Holley

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Dr. Brynn Welch
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Bioethics

Popular in Department

This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Mikaela Holley on Wednesday September 28, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHL 116 at University of Alabama at Birmingham taught by Dr. Brynn Welch in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views.

Similar to PHL 116 at UAB


Reviews for PHL 116 Week 5 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/28/16
Question 1 Chester M. Southam was a clinical investigator at the Memorial Sloan­Kettering Cancer Center who was  in the process of studying the immunology of cancer. He had previously injected cancer cells into  hundreds of patients who already had cancer but he regenerated new cancer cells that grew for weeks  before returning back to a regressive stage. Then, he injected cancer cells into healthy patients who did  not have cancer and discovered that their immune systems fought it off fairly quickly. This meant that  people who had cancer did not have immunity to their disease. This was not enough information for  Southam so he had to do one more srudy to justify his reasoning. He chose 22 hospitalized patients that  were chronically ill for his new study. Southam asked Emanuel E. Mandel who was the director of the  Department of Medicine at JCDH to participate in his study and Mandel agreed to go along with the  study. When another physician declined the request to do the injections on the patients, Mandel asked a  resident physician to perform the injections. Twenty­two patients received injections of a what they called “cell suspension.” By this, the physicians never disclosed to the patients that they were receiving cancer  cells through the injections. Southam believed that they didn’t need to know it was cancer cells because  he thought that there would be no risks of cancer developing since the patients didn’t already have cancer  and because he thought they wouldn’t want to do the study anymore if they knew it was cancer cells  solely because the word “cancer” has such a negative connotation.  Beecher reasonably thought this case  was unethical because they merely neglected to receive informed consent from these patients. They  basically said “Can I stick you with this needle?” As patients, several would believe that they would trust  the physicians to cause no harm to them so obviously they wouldn’t mind being stuck by needles. If they  were chronically ill, they probably had already been stuck by many needles and thought that the needle  would be no different from the others. Informed consent on the physicians’ part would have been  explaining to the patients what they were going to be a part of and what risks and benefits would they  have for participating. They took advantage of the patients solely for their own research which is wrong  in all shapes and sorts. Most healthy patients would not partake in this case because many often would not risk their lives or health to participate in something science related. You don’t simple take advantage of  humans and use them as lab rats without their consent to justify your advancements in science. This  would be considered a part of Beecher’s Bombshells because in his series of unethical cases that he  published, each case resembles how several people’s human rights were violated by the unethical and  immoral malpractices of many physicians.  Question 3 The argument pertaining to the use of placebo drugs trials in developing countries is that it will kill more  people but it will give better results and make them easier to decipher compared to the superior treatment  that will cost a whole lot more but it will save more people and the results from it would be more  complicated.  I think as a whole we should aim to satisfy more people in the health setting who are  affected with these illnesses so it would make sense to use the superior treatment over the placebo drug.  You know the superior drug will work so use it on millions of mothers so they won’t pass it on to their  kids. This superior drug will make the lives of many much easier. At this rate the mothers are stuck in  between getting a drug that can prevent them from passing this trait on to their kids or with the risks of  not taking the drug at all and not even passing the trait on. Right, you can’t account for all of the sick  mothers but you can at least account for majority of them making a difference than not treating them at all and they all die. Then, of course people are going to say that it is too expensive for the third world  countries to afford. Well where could the government come in at? I would say if the government stepped  in they could play a great deal into funding this campaign. If people in the U.S. were to conduct research  by mass producing a drug that the third world countries could actually afford, the U.S. could make lots of  money as well because they would be selling the drug on an international level. If government’s sole  purposes were to make and spend money on reasonable gestures, this idea would be beneficial. This case  violated the clinical equipoise requirement that Freedman advocates because the whole deal with that is if there’s a superior treatment offered than you should use that as opposed to placebo trials that was the  cheap less effective way out. The researchers went wrong when they used the placebo trials instead of the  superior treatment that they knew would work because they wanted more results instead of more accurate  results.


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.