Essay/Term paper: Through a narrow chink: an ethical dilemma

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Chemistry

Through A Narrow Chink: An Ethical Dilemma


by Pablo Baez
Chemistry 104
Prof. Holme


In 1951 Carl Djerassi, with the Mexican pharmaceutical company Syntex,
developed the first oral contraceptive by synthesizing and altering the natural
hormone Progesterone into a superpotent, highly effective oral progestational
hormone called "norethindrone".
Admittedly, the dynamics and importance of this find were astounding,
since before this the only means of contraception was abortion, and even that
was not legalized at the time.
The race to produce this synthetic agent was highly competitive, being
sought after by many pharmaceuticals throughout the world, and for a small
fledgling company in Mexico of all places to find it first only added to the
excitement of the achievement.
Yet aside from all this excitement and competitive fervor something
great and disturbing was being bypassed. Science, in my view had done something
great without looking into the possibilities of where this would lead.
I believe Djerassi, similar to most scientists of his day, was so
entranced by the excitement of synthesizing his product and achieving his goal
that he did not stop to think of the ramifications of his accomplishment. The
ethical dilemma was not explored before hand, and this to me is the great
tragedy of most scientific discovery, since I firmly believe each scientist is
responsible for that which he creates.
Djerassi does confront a few questions of ethics and morality after the
fact.
On page 61, in chapter 6, he reflects on the argument of the use of poor
Mexican and Puertorrican women for preliminary experiments. Is this just
another manifestation of exploitation of the poor?
Djerassi says absolutely not.
Yes, the poor our the initial guinea pigs for research but this is no
different from what dentists, barbers, and young surgeons do. All of these
groups use the poor to hone their skills, not because of the poor women's
ignorance but because middle class, suburbanite, white women are unlikely to
volunteer their services for the sake of science.
My main problem with this is that he claims they will not "volunteer"
their services. Of course not, they are aware of the possible detrimental
effects of such experimentation. This is obviously because they are probably
more highly educated the poor Hispanic women. Poverty often precludes a lack
of good schooling and education. Thus the awareness of such a group to
scientific studies will most likely be much lower. They probably knew nothing
of scientific research at all, let alone how to read a consent form that leaves
them without legal recourse.
Djerassi mentions this as well, the idea that he can not offer them
consent forms because they can't read.
That seems preposterous to me!
If he can not inform his patients of the possible side effects then what
chance do they have at justice if some carelessly administered drug causes them
harm?
Coming back to his original argument, he claimed suburbanites were not
likely to volunteer their services for the sake of scientific study, but I dare
argue the poor women most likely did not volunteer but were asked. Did he ask
the suburbanites? I highly doubt it was even proposed.
In chapter 9 Djerassi addresses another question he was often confronted
with. "How do you feel about the social outcome of the work?". He answered
this with a shrug of his shoulders and a simple, "I couldn't have changed
things".
Again, I am disturbed by the flippant manner of his response. Yes, he
acknowledged the impact the Pill had on the sexual revolution, but fails to see
beyond what has already occurred, claiming powerlessness against the pace of
science.
Let me say that he is most likely partially correct. There is very
little to be done when science determines to do something and the race begins
toward that goal. But to claim oneself unable to have made a difference,
especially someone of his intelligence and influence, is remarkably sad.
I firmly believe that the direction of science, though difficult to stop
or turn entirely, can be manipulated by those forefront scientists enough to at
least seek discovery with a certain social awareness.
This claim of powerlessness is a cop out, clear and simple, and no
euphemistic jargon or claim of ignorance will give the victims their normal
lives back. This has been the case in nuclear, medical, and chemical research.
Invariably someone suffers due to the insincerity of others.
Maybe I am being a bit harsh. Djerassi's Pill did give women a great power,
the power to control childbirth, as well as a greater freedom toward sexuality
that before this was monopolized by men. But medical ethics and moral
responsibility must become wed with research in the minds of scientists for a
real change in perspective to occur.
In 1994, my wife came home one day with tears in her eyes after having gone
to the Gynecologist for a regular check up. She mumbled through shaky lips the
words cervical cancer and something about a biopsy. I was mortified. Somehow,
at the young age of 25, my wife had gotten the beginnings of cervical cancer and
something had to be done fast. After a few tense days of waiting for the
biopsy results we were told she should have cryogenic surgery for the removal of
the tissue. It was removed and we were told not to worry.
Inquiring as to how such a young woman could have gotten cancer our
doctor said it was a possible side effect of using the same Pill prescription
for so long. We had never known this. If we had known we would never have used
it!
Personally, that scare was enough to prove to me that scientific
research and development must be extraordinarily careful as to what it finds as
acceptable risk.
William Blake was quoted by Djerassi as saying in The Marriage of Heaven
and Hell: "If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to
man as it is, infinite". This infinite view of all means that everything
overlaps, interconnects into an almost constant dance between particles, people,
and ideas. In other words nothing is independent and of itself. If this simple
concept of everything being related were to be assimilated into all that we
think and do, imagine the difference it would make. But our problem as Blake
continues is: "... man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro'
narrow chinks of his cavern."
Djerassi admits that only late in his life did he begin to widen those
chinks. He realized he had not seem all that was there, leading a sheltered
life with a somewhat narrow scientific perspective. He sustained social and
political attacks about the side effects of the Pill, survived through three
marriages, and dealt with the suicide of his depressed daughter. Arguably, he
had had a rewarding yet tough life.
But like my incidence with the side effects of the pill, his lack of
respect for the relationships between science and the rest of the world has cost
many dearly.
Yes, he has later in life admitted to his narrow sighted perspective of his
younger years, but that still doesn't address the issue that today's scientists
are still being trained in the same manner and with the same tunnel vision.
Something must be done, and it falls to the senior scientists such as himself to
rectify the problem!