Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Blog Post 10: Specific Ethical Question

Ask/address an ethical question in your field of interest.


        Field of Interest: Organic Chemistry/Biochemistry
        Ethical Issue: Is it ethical to develop drugs that carry harmful side effects?

Develop/address arguments for each side of the issue, then defend your position on the issue.
This activity must include references


         Many drugs that are currently available that harbor significant side effects. For example, a drug that has recently been receiving quite a bit of attention recently is Chantix (varenicline). Its purpose is to assist in the cessation of smoking by stimulating nicotine receptors in the brain. The FDA approved the use of Chantix in 2006 after a 6-month review process (4 months shorter than the standard 10-month review process).While it has proved to be at least somewhat effective to a large number of people, it has had a great amount of publicity dealing with it's staggering level of adverse psychological side effects. According to the Institute for Safe Medicine Practices, in the second quarter of 2008 alone Chantix was linked to nearly 1000 cases of serious injury or death, mostly stemming from suicidal behavior, a major side effect associated with Chantix.

        So who's to blame? The chemist for creating it? The pharm company for selling it? The FDA for approving it? The doctor for describing it? The patient for taking it? One could argue that those who produce the drug are ultimately the ones responsible for the damage caused by the drug. This is why pharmaceutical companies have payed billions of dollars in class action settlements. Many people have faith that the drugs they are prescribed by their doctors are safe, or that they will at least be informed of potential side effects.  However, it is often the case that doctors are somewhat misinformed about the drugs they are prescribing - maybe they are unaware of some potential side effects. It is much easier to blame the big corporation on the other side of the country than it is to blame someone you personally trust with your health.

        The fact is, when something goes wrong, someone has to get blamed. Sometimes the doctor gets blamed, but more often then not it's the pharmaceutical company. While certain business aspects of the pharmaceutical industry can often be ethically questionable, I believe that there is nothing ethically wrong with producing a dangerous drug from the standpoint of a chemist. When a chemist develops a novel drug, they clearly cannot instantly know whether the drug is completely safe or not, or whether or not it will carry potential side effects - that matter is addressed later on in the production process. It is much different than say, a nuclear chemist who develops a novel explosive that is used in nuclear weapons - they know that what they are producing is catastrophically dangerous. However, developing a drug is a bit different as the potential hazards (and benefits) are not manifest when the drug is first created. So, then, who is to blame? Tough question, as I think some of the blame can be passed around, but I certainly would not blame the chemist.




References:
FDA Speeds Smoking Cessation Drug Review (Journal of the American Medical Association)
ISMP Quarter Watch 2008

Each student will then review this beginning on Nov 2.

Evaluation Criteria:

1-4 are evaluated by assigning a strong(S), medium(M) or weak(W)

1. Described field of interest and described question posed.
2. Both sides of argument were presented.
3. Appropriate references were included
4. Defended position is described clearly

5. provide one useful comment

18 comments:

  1. 1. Strong
    2. Medium
    3. Strong
    4. Strong

    5. If you touched more on the arguments of supporting the drugs or not will strengthen your argument. Go into more specific information, but you have a good basis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. Described field of interest and described question posed. Strong
    2. Both sides of argument were presented. Medium
    3. Appropriate references were included Strong
    4. Defended position is described clearly Strong

    5. An argument for creating new drugs, would be that we could never cure anything if we didn't. It's nearly impossible to know the side affects of any drug that is newly created. Maybe try to include something along those lines in your post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1.S
    2.M
    3.S
    4.M

    5. Good topic and questions brought up on this issue. I think that you need to talk about both sides of the argument more. As well as your position on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. S
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S
    5. Interesting argument. I think your argument against your question could have been stronger and contained more information.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. S
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    5. I think that you needed to expand more on the arguments both for and against. I think that you did have good arguments but maybe some more would have helped.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1.S
    2.M
    3.S
    4.S
    5. Good topic! I would suggest talking about both arguments a bit more though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1.S
    2.M
    3.M
    4.S

    5. It is not very clear where you begin arguing for one side and stop arguing for the other. There is a good amount of opinion, but some more facts to pair with it would be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1.S
    2.M
    3.S
    4.M

    5. Good work here, I would emphasize more on your point of view and support it with more evidence-such as specific data, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1.S
    2.S
    3.S
    4.M
    5. Very cool topic. The only suggestion of mine is to put a little more emphasis on your position. I it was a little difficult to tell what side you were on. But overall very good and relevant to all.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1.S
    2.S
    3.S
    4.S

    Overall great work, I think that if you emphasized your side a bit more and went a bit more into details on some of the points it would help clearly define whats the argument about.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. Described field of interest and described question posed. S
    2. Both sides of argument were presented. M
    3. Appropriate references were included S
    4. Defended position is described clearly S

    5. It is a pretty informative piece of work. I think that you make a good point on why to not blame the chemist. I would agree with that. You should go more into what the pharm companies are doing when something goes wrong, how the families get compensated when a family member has psychological side effects which lead to death.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. S
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S
    5. Interesting Topic. Talk a little bit more about pros and con.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1.s
    2.m
    3.s
    4.m

    your position remains vague at the end. you eliminate the chemist but somebody has to be blamed...who would you blame...

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. S
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    I would agree that the chemist should not be blamed, and really, the drug company also cannot be blamed if a patient takes the drug and doesn't plan ahead for the side effects. If a drug is going to make you suicidal, inform your family and friends that they are going to have to keep a closer eye on you because of it.
    Who should be at fault? Maybe you could have gone into that end of it a bit more.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1. S
    2. M
    3. M
    4. S
    Great argument but it would be great if you could go into a little more detail. It is sad that someone must take the fall but I believe that those who are taking medication should understand that it is a chemical changing biological functions…. Something could potentially go wrong….

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1.S
    2.M
    3.S
    4.S

    I thought that you could have gone into more detail for both sides of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1. S
    2. M
    3. S
    4. M
    5. Both sides of the argument could have been explained more. Could talk more about your side as well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1. S
    2. M
    3. S
    4. M

    Nice job. I felt that both sides of the argument need more development. Also your opinion could have been more clearly laid out.

    ReplyDelete