Answer:
The investigador should: Discuss the pros and cons of both the investigational drug and the commercially available drug and then allow the subject to decide whether to withdraw from the research to take the new drug.
Explanation:
An investigator's ethical duty, is to keep the subject of investigation, well informed with all the details about the invesigation. At a phase 2 of the study the subject suposposedly has been informed of the prosedure, following the informed consent. So in this particular case the investigator has to present all the new information so the subject can decide for himself what is best for him.
During phase II of an investigation, it is necessary to evaluate the benefits or negative aspects of a drug, to ensure the safty and wellbeing of the subject. If a drog is known to harm a subject, the procedure would stop. In this phase is important to have the data to decide and discuss what is best for the subject.
Answer:
The institution Rachels quotes to establish his claim that active euthanasia has been generally seen as immoral, while passive euthanasia is seen as acceptable is The American Medical Association.
Explanation:
In his "Active and Passive Euthanasia", James Rachels discusses the morality behind each of the concepts. In active euthanasia, someone would have to administer some sort of lethal drug for the patient to die, while in passive euthanasia, death happens by omission, by doing nothing and simply allowing someone to die. The American Medical Association considers active euthanasia "incompatible with the physician’s role as healer". It is the association's beliefe that, even if the patient does wish to die due to prolonged suffering and pain, euthanasia does "more harm than good".
Answer: My best friend, animals, and I ghess people in general. I think other people are the reason we are who we are, and they are what make our lives the way they are. Lol sorry for the life speech :)
Explanation:
