Clinical trials are indispensable to the advancement of medical science, providing a framework for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new treatments, interventions, and technologies. However, they present profound ethical challenges, particularly in relation to patient consent and the use of animals in preclinical testing. Informed consent is central to safeguarding patient autonomy, yet practical difficulties arise from issues such as patient comprehension, vulnerability, and cultural differences. Animal testing, while traditionally viewed as a necessary component of preclinical research, prompts serious ethical concerns regarding animal welfare and the broader moral implications of causing harm to animals for human benefit. This review examines these ethical dilemmas, tracing their historical evolution, analysing current regulatory frameworks, and evaluating potential alternatives to both patient consent challenges and animal testing. Through the examination of case studies like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Henrietta Lacks case, as well as debates surrounding animal rights, this article emphasizes the need for continuous ethical vigilance and adaptive frameworks that can balance scientific progress with moral responsibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
H Mehamrita (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: