Ethical Dilemmas: Analyzing Cornell's AIDS Research in Haiti

This case study examines the ethical implications of Cornell Medical College's AIDS research in Haiti, focusing on a study of sex partners where only one is infected. The analysis contrasts utilitarian and Kantian ethics, highlighting the conflict between promoting overall happiness (utilitarianism) and upholding individual rights and duties (Kantianism). The author critiques the research for potentially violating the personal code of ethics by not fully informing participants and prioritizing research goals over individual well-being. The study questions the justification of conducting research in Haiti due to potentially less stringent ethical oversight. Ultimately, the author advocates for upholding virtue and ensuring informed consent in medical research, aligning with ethical guidelines and respecting the rights and values of research participants. Desklib offers this and many other solved assignments for students.

Running head: ETHICS 1
Ethics
Name
Institution

ETHICS 2
Utilitarian ethics
Utilitarianism believe that an action is deemed right of the action is said to be promoting
happiness or wrong if the intent of an action is a product that contradicts happiness. It does not
necessarily mean the happiness of the doer of the action but all the people who might be affected
by the action. In support to utilitarian, the research on couples at Cornell Medical College
contradicts the spirit of utilitarianism since the research does not disclose to the research subjects
that they are more interested in couples where one partners HIV positive (Mandal Ponnambath &
Parija, 2016).
This is attested by the concept of utilitarian which suggests that the theory relies on some
intrinsic value where all other values are to be derived from the intrinsic value (Ives & Bekessy,
2015). However, the weakness of utilitarian arguments is that all other values are based on the
intrinsic value and the end goal of the research at Cornell is determined to find a vaccine or cure
for HIV and AIDS. It implies that the test subjects receive treatment and medicine as benefits
during the study and their action to contribute in the research is considered as a good gesture
which is meant to benefit many people (Metzger, 2016).
Kantian ethics
Kantian ethics stems from the work of Immanuel Kant and is considered as the universal
theory that informs the principles of ethics. It postulates that the wrongness and rightness of an
action does not necessarily depend on the consequences rather whether the actions fulfil some
form of duty (Baron, 2018). In this regard, Cornell research study in Haiti is considered as moral
duty to find the vaccine or cure of HIV and AIDS. The strengths of Kantian ethics provides the
basis to create a distinction and inclination which is beneficial to other people. Therefore, since
the research is aimed at finding better approach to the virus then it is justified.

ETHICS 3
Kantian ethics makes justice impartial because one cannot promote happiness with an
action that undermines the happiness of another person. Further, humans are given an intrinsic
worth, respects and dignity which confirms that humans have similar rights (Formosa, 2017).
Weaknesses attributed form Kantian school if thought is that no rules are to be followed when
two duties are in conflict such as the duty to protect the patient and the duty to find a better
approach in dealing with HIV and AIDS. More so, Kantian do not provide allowance for
compassion and sympathy.
Personal Thoughts
Cornell research study in Haiti violated the personal code of ethics. This is because each
and every human being has a right to decisions that affect their lives. Subjecting people to a
research without clearly enabling them to understand the purpose of the research is misguided.
Just like the Tuskgee research, it is ethically wrong to involve an individual in a matter of life
and death without their consent. The reason why the research is conducted in Haiti is because
such a research would receive huge backlash from the public and government if such information
came out. Moreover, the research is ethically wrong because senior individuals at the clinic
suggest that they are offering the test subjects with numerous benefits which alludes to a win-win
situation when in reality a persons’ life is at stake. There are different approaches that the
research can use in the lab as opposed to continue with the research that goes against the ethical
guidelines of carrying out a research study.
From my studies on Virtue, Utilitarian and Kantian ethics, my personal code of ethics has
been challenged since there exist different philosophical approaches of justifying whether an
action is right or wrong (Van Hooft, 2014). In essence, all the school of thoughts agree or
disagree to an extent depending on the action in discussion. There are several strong points in

ETHICS 4
virtue that inclines me to believe in its principles. Among the reasons is that virtue is a moral
habit that enables an individual to maintain their values. The values are closely associated with
the moral standards of living.
For instance, both the clinicians and subjects have same rights but the values of the test
subjects are undermined. If the clinicians upheld virtue with which guides their values, then the
research process would not have proceeded under the same circumstances. However, there are
other factors that influence virtue and go beyond moral standards. In such a case, the overall goal
of the research study supersedes the human rights and virtues of the clinicians. The changes that
I would adopt with respect to the research at Cornell clinic is uphold virtue and inform the test
subjects all about the research and work with those willing to participate since it would benefit
those who are negative and would not want to be under a study is inconsistent with guidelines of
medical research.

ETHICS 5
References
Baron, M. W. (2018). Kantian ethics almost without apology. Cornell University Press.
Formosa, P. (2017). Kantian ethics, dignity and perfection. Cambridge University Press.
Ives, C. D., & Bekessy, S. A. (2015). The ethics of offsetting nature. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment, 13(10), 568-573.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in
medicine. Tropical parasitology, 6(1), 5.
Metzger, J. A. (2016). Humanism, Illness, and Elective Death: A Case Study in Utilitarian
Ethics. Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, 24(1).
Van Hooft, S. (2014). Understanding virtue ethics. Routledge.