Thread: Is it okay to Violate Ethic Code.

In today's scientific climate, the outcome of the experiments is irrelevant if the researcher violated his/her institution's established code of experimental ethics. The data is automatically invalidated and the researcher's career is ruined.

Ethics codes are in place to ensure that the collected research data is totally above board.

To some extent yes if you are experimenting to prolong or improve humankind yeah, aslong as you have consent of the test subject and they are fully aware of what might and might not happen. If they are willing to give their life to some experiment that will help mankind and die that's their fault maybe they could get their name down in somee sort of Official Book.

But no to animals, I'm not an animal lover but there is no way to get their consent.

I don't know. If they will suffer and you are causing it, thats still wrong. Even if it is for the greater good in the end. And although I love animals it is wrong to hurt a living thing for research. Any research, no matter what. And thats goes especially for humans. Humans can understand the pain they are going through and remeber it later, at least animals do not have morals and the like. So no it is not 'ok' to violate ethnic code, ever.

Even if the person knows and understands what could happen and has given full consent? What if they want to give their life in hope that there will be a cure for a certain illness.

Well, seeming on how you do the things, it might be considered ethically right, when in fact, normally it would be wrong.
Example, those 1,000 people that were killed for the cure of aids, did you pick up the homeless and force them to do it be infecting them with aids and then experimenting on them? Or even forcing people who already have aids who are going to die anyways? Those would be wrong.
But say that these thousand people are volunteers who gave themselves for the cause of a cure... then it might be considered ethical.
So, if you cannot find a way to change the ethics of a situation to suit the general public, then NO!!! Its wrong to do something unethical to get some "greater good".

Most of the time, people who say such things are evil people who's minds have been corrupted. Hitler thought that for the good of the German nation that he should send 6 million Jews to death camps.
And if a terrorist said that you had to kill a five-year old child to save 500 people strapped with explosives, would you plunge a knife into the 5 year olds heart? Some people might do it, but that doesn't mean its the "better choice"

this has been a conflict for many years and i think that you have to look at this situation in some ways and here they are.
1. ratios (short term : long term) ex. aids
if we were to kill a million people and find the cure for aids people would say before the killing, what happens if we dont?, and after, that wasnt worth it, but people forget that aids has claimed billions, and 28 million people have it, so then if you can count it would be 1 million dead to save billions in a long time, or billions dead to save people that will die, which is a loose:loose situation.
2. the case of the reasurch
i was recently watchin discovery channel, that said during the second world war during the arms race between usa and russia lived a person with telepathic powers and could read minds from space (has been tested), and the russian sientists experimented at a chess tournament by sending the kgb there to mentally distract the player (was proven, the person distracted lost and complained bout the kgb) and scientists said if the kgb have it and 1 in 3000 people have it, do other people have it, but to a limit. so they took rabbit mothers and incerted chips in its head to monitor the brain waves, and took the babies (500 total) and killed them, and watched the mothers brain waves rise, even when the babies were killed in another building, and the peta group tried to revolt against the kgb but then it was ww2 and it was too late. ok yes, the russians figured out that animals had instincts but did they have to kill 500+ bunnies?" no, but they could have killed less.
3. money
many companies make hair care n makeup and more and test them on animals because, one, if tested on humans, they could be prosecuted by the person tested if something bad happens, but when testing animals, they cant defend themselves. but i cannot make a statment whether yess or no, but all ima say is 'if you have to test it, then its not proven 100% safe'



-pce

Hmm... well when weighing human lives against an outcome, if input<output then I think ethics could be ignored. For instance, a tradeoff of 1 life for 10 is completely acceptable in my eyes, consent or no consent. I think every human is obligated to sacrifice themselves for the greater good should the occasion ever arise. I'm accepting this responsibility by going into the military. I could die a very painful death, but at least it would be for the greater good. I don't know how people can stand to die slow, useless and uneventfull deaths. I would think any honorable person would jump at the chance to exchange their life for a safer, healthier living for others and maybe make more out of themselves than decaying sacks of organic matter staring at their bank account and trying to get that crumb of their brand new Abercombie shirt.

All in all, I think every human is obligated to dedicate their lives towards the greater good. Weither their given the freewill to oblige, though, is questionable, as most would choose arrogantly not to.