View Single Post
  #6004  
Old 12-06-2016, 01:09 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMCMXLI
Default Re: Parents, do your due diligence on vaccination! There are serious risks!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have a different opinion than you as to what constitutes medical research.
peacegirl, your opinion as to what constitutes medical research is immaterial. The conduct of medical research involving humans requires independent ethical oversight. As I have pointed out, the collection of biological materials from humans for research purposes is medical research involving humans, which requires independent ethical oversight.
Quote:
Because you make it sound like it was done in a forced setting.
Not necessarily. We can't say for sure, because the medical research involving humans was done without independent ethical oversight. The need to ensure that the consent process and the research are not coerced are an important reason that it is ethically necessary to obtain independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans.
Quote:
Accepting the fact that he didn't get ethical approval, this did not warrant the removal of his medical license. He could have been reprimanded, which would have been enough. There's more to the story.
This was not the sole bases for revoking his medical license, but his failure to obtain independent ethical oversight is manifestly unethical.
Quote:
He did not need ethical approval for performing a clinical study. If you think he was lying about this, prove it.
peacegirl, as I have demonstrated repeatedly, the Declaration of Helsinki and other research governance frameworks demand independent ethical oversight of medical research involving humans. He did not obtain this.
Quote:
Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more right. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote:
The fact remains that he did get appropriate consent. He just didn't get it from the ethics committee. What he did was unethical in a legal sense but not in a moral sense.
As I mentioned, informed consent is an important consideration in the ethical conduct of medical research, but the Declaration of Helsinki and other research governance frameworks do not end there. Indeed, a vital reason for the need for independent ethical oversight is to ensure the consent process is appropriate and voluntary. This is one reason why it was unethical for Andrew Wakefield to conduct medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight.

His failure to obtain independent ethical oversight for his medical research on children is not excused by his claim to have obtained informed consent; however, the consent itself must be subject to the review of independent ethical oversight in order to ensure that it is voluntary and free of coercion. Wakefield's failure to obtain independent ethical oversight of his medical research on children tainted the consent process.
Quote:
If I, as a nurse, do something to save your life that has not been approved by the ethical committee, it would be better to let you die?
peacegirl, as I previously discussed, medical interventions other than medical research involving humans do not necessarily require independent ethical oversight. Medical research involving humans does require independent ethical oversight. Otherwise, such medical research is manifestly unethical.
Quote:
I'm sorry but the only mistake he made was not getting approval.
This is a grave mistake.
Quote:
He did nothing unethical.
He conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. This is gravely unethical.
Quote:
He did not follow the rules of medical ethics (which does have its place) which is a standard of conduct that must be followed. I get it. But in spite of this, his breach of conduct according to the standards set by the ethical committee hurt no one.
His conduct of medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight is unexcused.
Quote:
Wow! I can concede that he made a mistake, and I can agree that he should have been reprimanded, but to call him a huckster, a fraud, and a liar is unfounded. Moreover, defending my father's work is not in good fun. It is serious business. You are the one that turned into lulz. You have no understanding of the book at all. That's why I don't trust anything you say regarding Wakefield. You have no proof that he has done the terrible things that he has been accused of.
I have proof that he conducted medical research on children without obtaining independent ethical oversight. Andrew Wakefield himself provides that proof in his own narrative. That narrative is shocking to the morally normal conscience.

You don't have to "trust" me; fortunately, Andrew Wakefield has been stripped of his medical license for being an unethical quack, and now merely defrauds the gullible instead of conducting unethical medical research on children.

But suit yourself. The continued defense of Andrew Wakefield's conduct of medical research on children without independent ethical oversight severely undermines the legitimacy of moral arguments against the childhood vaccine schedule. The defense also happens to be incoherent and inconsistent, and refuted entirely by Wakefield's own statements, such that the proponent looks quite foolish and ill-informed in sustaining a defense of the ethically indefensible. But you have that right of way.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (12-06-2016), But (12-06-2016), chunksmediocrites (12-06-2016), Dragar (12-06-2016), specious_reasons (12-06-2016), Stephen Maturin (12-06-2016), The Lone Ranger (12-06-2016), The Man (12-06-2016)
 
Page generated in 0.08579 seconds with 11 queries