Medical Research and Testing

Starring Hugh Grant, Gene Hackman, and Sarah Jessica Parker, the 1996 film Extreme Measures addresses classic bioethics principles. The most significant ethical principle the film presents is related to testing on human subjects. However, this subject is presented in the film as being linked to another significant biomedical ethical issue, and that is patient informed consent. Within these two issues are embedded a series of other issues, such as the social value principle as it applies to the medical research. Dr.

Myrick (Gene Hackman) operates under the social value principle exclusively, to the point where he systematically ignores almost every other bioethical principle. He violates patient rights by not acquiring the informed consent of the individuals by disclosing that they might die from his treatments, and he also treats the homeless people like their lives do not matter, as if they are disposable. Patient autonomy is violated and social justice issues are violated. Moreover, it can be said that even though Mr.

Myrick does have some good intentions in finding a cure for paralysis, which would benefit many people if he were to find the cure, that in the meantime, he is not upholding the ethical obligation to do no harm (non-maleficence). Mr. Myrick seems to be a harsh utilitarian. He utilizes people for his own gain as well as for the presumed social gains that might come from his discoveries, justifying his unethical behavior by hiding behind the social value principles.

Whether the medical research is for paralysis or for cancer, it would not matter. Testing on human subjects is always a tricky issue in bioethics. The people who are participants in biomedical research are frequently as they are in this film: powerless. They are poor or disenfranchised. It is an ethical obligation to refrain from taking advantage of people by using them for medical research. At the very least, the patients need informed consent.

If the homeless people know what they are getting themselves into, then some might actually consent -- but that still would not make the testing ethical because it would violate the codes of ethics under which doctors operate, in which non-maleficence remains important. Guy (Hugh Grant) is a doctor who believes more in the established biomedical norms and principles. His view is based on a deontological ethical stance: the ends do not justify the means.

People should never be used for medical research if (a) it is known they will die; and (b) the patients are unaware of (a). These are the two core issues. Guy would never object to medical research that was on the brink of curing a disease if that research was conducted in accordance with ethical principles, but in this case that was clearly not so.

There is never any sure way to know whether a researcher is ever on the brink of actually making a discovery, and no way to know whether that potential discovery might not bear side effects that could end up causing more harm than good. Before the treatment is actually proven to work in a manner that has been empirically tested in a scientific manner, no amount of ethical breaches can be tolerated.

Finally, I would not feel differently about the research physician's choices if he were possibly on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer. I would want to know what other methods the doctor could use, and why he felt that he was "on the verge." That phrase is too.