Matching Items (66)
Description
With the number of internationally-run clinical drug trials increasing, the double standards between those in developed nations and those in developing nations are being scrutinized under the ethical microscope. Many argue that several pharmaceutical companies and researchers are exploiting developing nation participants. Two issues of concern are the use of a placebo control when an effective alternative treatment exists and the lack of drug availability to the country that hosted the clinical trial should the experimental drug prove effective. Though intuitively this seems like an instance of exploitation, philosophically, exploitation theories cannot adequately account for the wrongdoing in these cases. My project has two parts. First, after explaining why the theories of Alan Wertheimer, John Lawrence Hill, and Ruth Sample fail to explain the exploitation in clinical drug research, I provide an alternative account of exploitation that can explain why the double standard in clinical research is harmful. Rather than craft a single theory encompassing all instances of exploitation, I offer an account of a type, or subset, of exploitation that I refer to as comparative exploitation. The double standards in clinical research fall under the category of comparative exploitation. Furthermore, while many critics maintain that cases of comparative exploitation, including clinical research, are mutually beneficial, they are actually harmful to its victims. I explain the harm of comparative exploitation using Ben Bradley's counterfactual account of harm and Larry May's theory of sharing responsibility. The second part of my project focuses on the "standard of care" argument, which most defenders use to justify the double standard in clinical research. I elaborate on Ruth Macklin's position that advocates of the "standard of care" position make three faulty assumptions: placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard, the only relevant question responsive to the host country's health needs is "Is the experimental product being studied better than the 'nothing' now available to the population?", and the only way of obtaining affordable products is to test cheap alternatives to replace the expensive ones. In the end, I advocate moving towards a universalizing of standards in order to avoid exploitation.
ContributorsFundora, Danielle (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis advisor) / Brake, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
ABSTRACT Deciding what to eat can be difficult. There are multiple different diets which are popular today, and all of them say different things about which foods optimize health, and which foods are destructive. The situation become more complicated when the suggestions are all purportedly based on relevant science, and all have had demonstrated positive impacts on overall wellbeing. Even when we do have good information, financial factors, geography, and time constraints can prevent us from acting on it. In an attempt to portray the difficulties involved in eating well, I start by analyzing what each of six diets - The Paleo Diet, The Perfect Health Diet, the vegetarian diet, the vegan diet, the Mediterranean Diet, and the Traditional Asian Diet - says about what we should be eating. I then explore what the science says about what we should be eating, and whether this science lines up with the diets, by discussing an extensive review of books and literature on nutrition. Lastly, in order to gain an understanding of factors which discourage us from eating well, I tracked my consumption habits for a week using My Fitness Tracker, and noted any reasons that I chose to eat or not eat certain foods. I supplemented this with a discussion of the shortcomings of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and the types of factors that prevent people from acting on information. In conclusion, diets should be praised for attempting to align American eating habits with the best scientific information, but the vast amount of information and the difficulty involved in eating well may ultimately prevent people from doing so.
ContributorsWhitson, Grant (Author) / Robert, Jason (Thesis advisor) / Hurlbut, Ben (Committee member) / Wharton, Chris (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
This study aims to unearth monological and monocultural discourses buried under the power of the dominant biomedical model governing the HIV/AIDS debate. The study responds to an apparent consensus, rooted in Western biomedicine and its "standardizations of knowledge," in the production of the current HIV/AIDS discourse, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, biomedicine has become the dominant actor (in) writing and rewriting discourse for the masses while marginalizing other forms of medical knowledge. Specifically, in its development, the Western biomedical model has arguably isolated the disease from its human host and the social experiences that facilitate the disease's transmission, placing it in the realm of laboratories and scientific experts and giving full ownership to Western medical discourse. Coupled with Western assumptions about African culture that reproduce a one-sided discourse informing the social construction of HIV/AIDS in Africa, this Western monopoly thus constrained the extent and efficacy of international prevention efforts. In this context, the goal for this study is not to demonize the West and biomedicine in general. Rather, this study seeks an alternative and less monolithic understanding currently absent in scientific discourses of HIV/AIDS that frequently elevates Western biomedicine over indigenous medicine; the Western expert over the local. The study takes into account the local voices of Sub-Saharan Africa and how the system has affected them, this study utilizes a Foucauldian approach to analyze discourse as a way to explore how certain ways of knowledge are formed in relation to power. This study also examines how certain knowlege is maintaned and reinforced within specific discourses.
ContributorsAbdalla, Mohamed (Author) / Jacobs, Bertram (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Klimek, Barbara (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Libertarians affirm the right to liberty, i.e., the right to do what one wants free from interference. Libertarians also affirm the right to private property. One objection to libertarianism is that private property relations restrict liberty. This objection appears to have the consequence that libertarianism is an incoherent position. I examine Jan Narveson's version of the libertarian view and his defense of its coherence. Narveson understands the right to liberty as a prohibition on the initiation of force. I argue that if that is what the right to liberty is, then the enforcement of property rights violates it. I also examine Narveson's attempt to support private property with his distinction between interference with and mere prevention of activity and argue that this distinction does not do the work that he needs it to do. My conclusion is that libertarianism is, in a sense, impossible because conceptually unsound.
ContributorsSchimke, Christopher (Author) / de Marneffe, Peter (Thesis advisor) / McGregor, Joan (Committee member) / Blackson, Thomas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
In the past 100 years pet, zoo/aquarium, and research animals have gained unprecedented legal protection from unnecessary human harm via the creation of strict animal cruelty laws. Due to the work of moral philosophers and compassionate lawyers/judges animal cruelty laws have been improved to provide harsher punishments for violations, had their scopes widened to include more animals and had their language changed to better match our evolving conception of animals as independent living entities rather than as merely things for human use. However, while the group of pet, zoo/aquarium, and research animals has enjoyed more consideration by the US legal system, another group of animals has inexplicably been ignored. The farm animals that humans raise for use as food are exempted from nearly every state and federal animal cruelty law for no justifiable reason. In this paper I will argue that our best moral and legal theories concede that we should take animal suffering seriously, and that no relevant difference exists between the group of animals protected by animal cruelty laws and farm animals. Given the lack of a relevant distinction between these two groups I will conclude that current animal cruelty laws should be amended to include farm animals.
ContributorsDeCoster, Miles (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis advisor) / Blackson, Thomas (Committee member) / Calhoun, Cheshire (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
At present, the ideological bias in the human enhancement debate holds that opponents to human enhancement are primarily techno-conservatives who, lacking any reasonable, systematic account of why we ought to be so opposed, simply resort to a sort of fear-mongering and anti-meliorism. This dissertation means to counteract said bias by offering just such an account. Offered herein is a heuristic explanation of how, given a thorough understanding of enhancement both as a technology and as an attitude, we can predict a likely future of rampant commodification and dehumanization of man, and a veritable assault on human flourishing.
ContributorsMilleson, Valerye Michelle (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis advisor) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / French, Peter (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Abstract. The term "sex trafficking" can mean many different things, depending on who uses it. To some, it may be synonymous with prostitution. To others, it may equate to slavery. And some may find that sex trafficking differs from both slavery and prostitution. But I find that the term "sex trafficking" is used improperly when referring to phenomena that may not entail the violation of rights of any individual involved. For this reason, various definitions of "sex trafficking" may inappropriately conflate sex trafficking with prostitution. In this essay, I argue against such a conflation through supporting a rights-based approach of defining "sex trafficking," in which every instance of true sex trafficking necessitates a violation of someone's rights. First, I begin by laying the foundation of my discussion with definitions and various government and non-government uses of the term "sex trafficking." Then, I argue for the rights-based approach. I proceed to explore how the rights-based approach relates to consent, force, coercion, deception, and competence. Then, I compile my findings, synthesize a definition, and elaborate on a few questions regarding my definition. Using the term "sex trafficking" correctly, as I argue, means that we necessarily use the term in a context of a violation of rights.
ContributorsMiller, Isaac Jonathan (Author) / de Marneffe, Peter (Thesis director) / McGregor, Joan (Committee member) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Human subject research is a sensitive ethical topic in today's society, and with good cause. The history of human subject research is full of tragedy and wrongdoing, which is what has led to the firm restrictions we presently have. At the same time, we also acknowledge the value behind human subject research and the information science can obtain from such endeavors. This project analyzes this conundrum through a narrative describing a group of scientists who choose to ignore some of the laws and regulations concerning human subject research in order to pursue neurological based research for a "greater good." In the novella, the scientists end up harming several people while performing their illegal research, but are able to obtain successful results. However, the group is eventually caught, and end up having to face the consequences of their actions. The situations and interactions the story presents are meant to juxtapose both sides of the human subject research ethical argument in a unique way in order to allow the reader to critically think through the argument themselves and form their own opinions on the matter.
ContributorsPirotte, Benjamin Daniel (Author) / Finn, Edward (Thesis director) / Cook, Paul (Committee member) / McGregor, Joan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
The globalized food system has caused detriments to the environment, to economic justice, and to social and health rights within the food system. Due to an increasing concern over these problems, there has been a popular turn back to a localized food system. Localization's main principle is reconnecting the producer and consumer while advocating for healthy, local, environmentally friendly, and socially just food. I give utilitarian reasons within a Kantian ethical framework to argue that while partaking in a local food system may be morally good, we cannot advocate for localization as a moral obligation. It is true from empirical research that localizing food could solve many of the environmental, economic, social, and health problems that exist today due to the food system. However, many other countries depend upon the import/export system to keep their own poverty rates low and economies thriving. Utilitarian Peter Singer argues that it would be irresponsible to stop our business with those other countries because we would be causing more harm than good. There are reasons to support food localization, and reasons to reject food localization. Food localization is a moral good in respect to the many benefits that it has, yet it is not a moral obligation due to some of the detriments it may itself cause.
ContributorsGulinson, Chelsea Leah (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis director) / Watson, Jeff (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
This project explores a variety of ways of framing the problem of obesity, beginning with a multidisciplinary assessment of genetic, environmental, cultural, nutritional, and socioeconomic factors involved in the structure and the consequences of each frame. How obesity is framed as a problem has a profound impact on the kinds of solutions that may be deemed scientifically appropriate. But frames are not entirely evidence-based, inasmuch as political and moral values infuse debates about the nature of obesity. Drawing on interdisciplinary resources from bioethics and the philosophy of science, I strive to offer strategic insight in to how to navigate the complexity of these issues.
ContributorsYanamandra, Meghana (Author) / Robert, Jason (Thesis director) / Wharton, Christopher (Committee member) / Drago, Mary (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / School of Human Evolution and Social Change (Contributor)
Created2014-05