Bioethics in Extreme Measures: Consent and Human Testing
This paper examines the 1996 film Extreme Measures as a vehicle for exploring core biomedical ethics principles, particularly the ethics of human subject testing and patient informed consent. Through the contrasting characters of Dr. Myrick (Gene Hackman) and Dr. Guy (Hugh Grant), the paper analyzes utilitarian versus deontological approaches to medical research. It argues that Dr. Myrick's social-value-only justification fails to satisfy the seven ethical principles outlined by the National Institutes of Health, and that no potential breakthrough — whether for paralysis or cancer — can ethically excuse violations of informed consent, non-maleficence, or respect for research subjects.
- Introduction: Bioethics on Screen: Film overview and core bioethical issues introduced
- Dr. Myrick and the Social Value Principle: Myrick's utilitarian violations of patient rights
- Vulnerability, Informed Consent, and Research Ethics: Ethical risks of testing on powerless populations
- Guy's Deontological Counterargument: Grant's character defends ends-don't-justify-means ethics
- Would a Cancer Cure Change the Calculus?: Applying NIH's seven principles to a stronger scenario
- Conclusion: Myrick violates six of seven NIH research principles
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds film analysis in a concrete ethical framework — the NIH's seven principles of research ethics — giving the argument measurable standards rather than vague moral intuitions.
- It uses character contrast (Myrick's utilitarianism vs. Guy's deontology) to structure a balanced philosophical debate rather than a one-sided critique.
- The conclusion directly addresses a common counterargument ("what if it were a cancer cure?") and refutes it systematically, strengthening the overall position.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper applies ethical theory to a cultural artifact — the film — as a case study. Rather than describing the movie's plot, the student uses scenes and character choices as evidence for or against named ethical principles (non-maleficence, autonomy, social value). This technique of using fictional scenarios to test real ethical frameworks is standard in applied bioethics writing and gives the argument both accessibility and analytical rigor.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis identifying its two linked issues (human subject testing and informed consent), then dedicates a section to each main character's ethical position. A focused paragraph addresses vulnerable populations. The final section preemptively answers a likely objection before wrapping up with the NIH seven-principles checklist. This problem–counterargument–rebuttal arc is well suited to short analytical essays in health ethics courses.
Introduction: Bioethics on Screen
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 as being linked to another significant biomedical ethical issue: patient informed consent. Within these two issues are embedded a series of additional concerns, such as the social value principle as it applies to medical research.
Dr. Myrick and the Social Value Principle
Dr. Myrick (Gene Hackman) operates under the social value principle exclusively, to the point where he systematically ignores nearly every other bioethical principle. He violates patient rights by failing to obtain informed consent — specifically, by not disclosing that participants might die from his treatments. He also treats homeless people as though their lives are disposable. Patient autonomy is violated, and social justice principles are disregarded.
Moreover, even though Dr. Myrick has some good intentions in seeking a cure for paralysis — a discovery that would benefit many people — he fails to uphold the ethical obligation to do no harm (non-maleficence). Dr. Myrick is, in essence, a harsh utilitarian. He exploits people for his own purposes as well as for the presumed social gains that might follow from his discoveries, justifying his unethical behavior by hiding behind social value principles. Whether the research targets paralysis or cancer is beside the point.
Vulnerability, Informed Consent, and Research Ethics
Testing on human subjects is always a complex issue in bioethics. As depicted in this film, participants in biomedical research are frequently powerless — poor or otherwise disenfranchised. There is an ethical obligation to refrain from exploiting such individuals for medical research purposes. At a minimum, patients must provide informed consent. If homeless participants knew what they were getting into, some might voluntarily agree — but that alone would not make the testing ethical, because it would still violate the codes of conduct under which physicians operate, including the foundational principle of non-maleficence.
Conclusion
Dr. Myrick complied only with the social value component of the NIH's seven principles but blatantly violated all the other six. No potential medical breakthrough, however promising, can ethically excuse the systematic disregard of informed consent, non-maleficence, patient autonomy, and respect for vulnerable research subjects.
References
Apted, M. (1996). Extreme Measures [Feature film].
Emanuel, E., Abdoler, E., & Stunkel, L. (n.d.). Research ethics. NIH. Retrieved from https://bioethics.nih.gov/education/FNIH_BioethicsBrochure_WEB.PDF
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.