The Constant Gardener and Ethical Standards in Research

Standards in Research

The Constant Gardener (2005), directed by Fernando Meirelles, is a poignant reminder of previous unethical occurrences in science and medicine. The film’s inherent controversy ignites discussions on ethical practices for human experimentation. The practice of human experimentation is not a foreign concept, and it occurs frequently in modern society. Experimentation is a necessary step for validating beneficial drugs and therapies. However, due to past missteps, there are now protocols that must be followed by all medical professionals to uphold ethical standards in science.

One of the most recent healthcare controversies in the U.S. involved an African-American woman named Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta suffered from cervical cancer and was treated by Dr. George Gey (Lasso, 2011). Dr. Gey inappropriately used Ms. Lacks’ abnormal cervical cells to create an immortal cell line called HeLa cells (Lasso, 2011). This cell line is used today for a variety of scientific research (Zilinskas & Balint, 2001). The controversy with Henrietta Lacks’ case involved the use of her stem cells without proper approval. Her physician used her cells without her knowledge and breached her patient rights. Unfortunately, Ms. Lacks has long since passed away, but her cell line is still alive and in use. Ms. Lacks and her family have never been fully compensated for her unwitting contributions towards science (Zilinskas & Balint, 2001). Much like The Constant Gardener, the issue with HeLa cells involved the lack of informed patient consent. This incident has sparked an outrage, which has resulted in the development of strict protocols regarding patient rights and human experimentation.

As with most protocols, the regulation for human experimentation and testing is in response to historical controversies. The regulations in place today are there to ensure proper respect, approval, and safety for all individuals. One important entity that upholds research integrity is the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a body formed to act as a barrier to prevent unethical experimentation. It monitors biomedical research and has the power to approve, request modifications, and disprove research plans ("Institutional Review Boards," 2013). The main purpose of the IRB is to use a group process for reviewing proposals and to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects. Additionally, the IRB oversees the process for informed consent. The focus of informed consent is to provide all the necessary information to the patient, provide time for them to consider all options, and to allow ample room for questions ("Institutional Review Boards," 2013). There are many steps and guidelines a researcher must follow to obtain informed consent, and all of these are delineated by detailed protocols. Although the process is tedious, using IRB guidelines can prevent members of the research team from breaching patient rights.

The members of the research team may include a variety of healthcare professionals, including nurses. Each member is responsible for upholding high ethical standards in the treatment and use of human subjects for experimental studies. The nurse has an integral part in the system to prevent the violation of proper protocol. Nurses are responsible for reporting unethical care or treatment of patients, and to provide proper care themselves. They are an invaluable tool for upholding high research standards.

The Constant Gardener is an excellent film that is very similar to actual events that have occurred in history. It is an important reminder that without regulation, researchers may take advantage of poor patient circumstances to make scientific discoveries. Nurses and other healthcare workers are charged with the responsibility to uphold high standards of care in both a hospital and a research setting. With conscientious healthcare workers, unethical or compromising situations can be avoided.

References

Institutional review boards frequently asked questions - information sheet. (2013, August 27). Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm126420.htm

Lasso, R. A. (2011). The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks. JAMA, 305(11), 1143-1144. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.329.

Zilinskas, R., & Balint, P. (2001). The human genome project and minority communities: Ethical, social, and political dilemmas. (pp. 38-39). CT: Praeger Publishers. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=xKEgGVUb7uAC&dq=Henrietta Lacks unethical&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s