Essay about "A calculated risk Anonymous. The Economist; London Vol. 440, Iss. 9262, (Sep 11, 2021): 72."

This review essay may contain some errors about the objective truth. Also, this review essay is completely written by myself. Therefore might have a biased opinion. Please tell me if this essay includes some errors about the objective truth. Also, I like to hear your idea about my opinion. Please leave them in the comment. I never take responsibility for the content of this essay. Every choice is up to you. So please be cautious when reading it.  


When considering the medical experiment on the living body, its image seems pretty spooky and dangerous. I think it's because we should take copious amounts of risk when proceeding with such tests. But in the article, pros claim that we should take medical experiments on the living body in a controlled environment like hospitals' quarantined rooms. It must be the best choice for the task. Also, until now, big pharmacy firms usually conduct many medical tests on living human bodies. However, the cons in the article assert that Covid19 is not comparable with the other virus or germ tests we had before. He or she said that it is much more dangerous since we don't have many experiences but rather the first test dealing with it. 

I think we should conduct the experiment and get the result to handle the situation. And of course, the experiment must be proceeded in a perfectly managed environment with the experts preparing to support medical action for the participants under the supervisor for human rights. Also, participants must reap a reward for their sacrifice. 

With all these conditions fulfilled, I think it is not that much different from the experiments we human species have always done until now. Without the experiments, we can't get linear knowledge about the virus and it will make it it researchers hard to reach proper results for making vaccines or cures. 

The main problem with this procedure is an ethical problem. It is sensible that poor people will volunteer for the experiment, usually for the money and rich people will not. Therefore, it might be a privilege for the rich people and social pressure for the poor people. It is very hard to classify whether the participants applied for the money or for humanitarianism. Human right, which referred to as natural rights is inviolable right that can't be sold for the money. The best way to solve this problem is to ban poor people to apply for the experiment but it seems to lack insights into the practical situation. 

Consequently, all considering those matters, I think taking a specific questionnaire for the participants might be a good solution. A survey that can figure out applicant has enough knowledge and enough sense of duty. Also, reinforcement of the health insurance for the participants' lifetime seems appropriate either. Finally, participants must be rewarded with enough financial supports. 


Thanks. 




Comments