All these charters that have clearly defined the boundaries of what both the positive i.e. natural rights and negative i.e. The unjust exploitative rights of the people are and how no institution or research domains have the right or power to violate them (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996).
Based on the above fact, we have to consider all the concerns related towards security of an individual as well as his rights, societal principles and considerations, national strategies, the financial system and market of the country as well as the social-educational-traditional structure that might be put in jeopardy due to a scientific research of nanomedicine. Hence we have to carefully consider that the researchers who are investing their time and effort in to the nano-medical research are treated with value while still securing the human rights of the society i.e. awareness of and protection against the hazardous effects of nanoparticles on human and ecological health. We also have to consider the principle issues of integrity, unity and sovereignty and their role in the research studies (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996).
Even though the social, financial, political and moral issues are interlinked and inter-dependent features, they will be tackled separately in this review and the emphasis will be on the accurate implementation of the nanomedicine asset so that it can be utilized in a morally secure, autonomous and rightful way. For this to happen there have to be clear distinctions made amongst the following (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996):
Medicinal and non-medicinal topics;
Definite and ambiguous troubles or concerns;
The current, close and far-off future potentials;
The conventional and moderns theories of health and ailment
Even though these distinctions need to be made for progress, one must be prepared for the added troubles or concerns that might arise from each of these. The fact of the matter still remains that the people are bound to be affected by this technology whether that be straightforwardly through human testing or circuitously through exposure to nanoparticles. This is why it is vital that the public rights are understood and considered before any further experimentation is carried out and the people need to be made aware of the pros and cons of the nanotechnology so that they too can make choices and adopt precautionary efforts (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996).
Description of the Issues
Security and health
The security and awareness concerns amongst the people regarding the use of nanomedicine and have been raised with clear directives in numerous reports and surveys (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996). Even though every report that has been issued addressing this particular topic has used different strategies but they have all focused on the fact that there is very little information available on the use and side effects of the phenomenon of nanomedicine on both the public and ecological health. And all these reports propose that this has got to change because otherwise it would result in dire circumstances of resistance towards the use of nanotechnology. There has to clear difference made between what are the direct (to a patient of nanomedicine) and indirect (to an individual or atmosphere exposed to nanoparticles) effects of nanotechnology (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996).
Even though the main concern of researchers at this point is the direct effect that nanomedicine has on an individual but the fact of the matter is that there is, in essence, a very minuscule difference between the two effects which is why the scientist and researchers have to incorporate both risk situations in their research studies. Hence the risk assessment strategy should serve, as a protection, for both the human and ecological health as well as the harmless development of nanotechnology (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996).
The scientists, however, who are dealing with nanomedicine, still pay far more attention to the direct effects of the nanomedicines as opposed to the indirect exposures to nanoparticles. They tend to pay attention to whatever negative effects injecting nanomedicine in the body might have on the tissue cells because of unnecessary amassing, or easy transference to other parts of the body like the brain, or the structure of the cellular metabolism. They try to come up with the best forms of animal testing that could give them the closest reactions to what might happen in the human body. They tend to focus on the best possible ways to implement nanotechnology so that there are no dire effects with the sufficient amount of toxicological data (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996).
Some researchers and scientists have focused on the indirect exposure to nanoparticles and their effects on societies due to the nano pollutants in the water, air and soil and have tried to find a bridge between the fundamental human rights and safeties and the industry that is trying to expand its market (Wei, 2007).
The Dutch Health Council report was one of those that urged the scientist to thoroughly investigate both the negative and positive influences that nanotechnology might have directly and indirectly. The UNESCO report, however, was purely based upon the on the violations of the ethics and rights that the negative effects of nanotechnology inflict on a society, and how these need to be rectified soon (Wei, 2007).
Management of risks
The problems with calculating risks of nanomedicine are dependent upon its unpredictable nature. There is no sure way of knowing, recognizing, analyzing or administrating the risks in nanotechnology because there are still many who have restricted knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon. The long-term and short-term concern of nanotechnology are different and dependent upon numerous variables. Concerns are also raised by the difficulties of identifying, estimating and managing risks in an area where there are considerable uncertainties and knowledge gaps, and when the short-term and long-term risks may be different. All of these shortcomings have been discussed by different profit organizations and in several reports and researches (Wei, 2007).
The concern for creating unnecessary and untrue publicity and promotion for the nanomedicine has been a consequence of the rise in competition amongst researchers and the demand of financial support for the research studies. The false publicity is making nanomedicine come across as more of a success as a treatment then it actually is. This false publicity would give rise to false and unnecessary fears related to the phenomenon. This is why the researchers need to find a broader and a more flexible strategy for its implementation so that nanomedicine can adapt to the changing social, environmental, trade and national tactical patterns (Dierkes, Hoffmann and Marz, 1996).
Factors that cause or create the issues:
Concerns related to Bioethics
Safeguarding individual human rights
The laws and regulations involving the security of human rights that have been designed by organizations on both, international and national, spheres clearly explains the procedures that need to be followed when dealing with health care as well as medical research. These procedures include the steps to make sure that the volunteers for research are well aware of what is happening and can make an informed decision as to their consent for participation. It also includes what steps are needed to be followed if the participants of the research are, due to variable circumstances, incapable to make an informed decision (Wei, 2007).
The aforementioned regulations also include procedures that would safeguard the people as well as the ecological society as a whole against the negative effects of the use of nanomedicine as well as the unforeseen problems that might arise due to its unpredictable nature. These procedures will also include the risk prevention or precautionary methods of the short-term or long-term concerns, both medical and non-medical, of the application nanomedicine. Some of the vital concerns tackled in these procedures are the management of all the medical knowledge that is gained swiftly even though there are considerable doubts and disparities as to its authenticity (Wei, 2007).
The ethical problem does not lie in getting the patients to oblige to a certain procedure; the problem lies in doing it in a way that patient is clearly and fully informed of what he is obliging to. The patient needs to comprehend his problem and the solution that is being provided to him for that problem and what would be its negative and positive impacts on him/her. The real challenge comes when this information has to be articulated or communicated within a domain of research that is consistently modifying and in a situation where one has got to carry out assumed analysis of several unidentified factors and intricacies. In these situations it might be difficult to clearly state what form of procedure would be most suitable and successful (Wei, 2007).
Intricate structures and augmented individual liability
The most amazing feature of nanomedicine is that it will reduce new dimensions and angles to…