Some say that clinical trials on humans are mandatory for determining the effects and side effects of medicines being developed so that there will be fewer and fewer killer diseases in the days to come.

• Argue for and against this view?

The propriety of clinical trial on humans has been a topic of heated discussion for ages. However, the need for it on humans to authenticate medicines is opposed and supported by many. Let us see the arguments.

Primarily, a trial of good intentions by all means is going to benefit the humanity as a whole. So, if a few humans are encouraged to take part in clinical trials so that the veracity of a life saving medicine could be ascertained, there is no harm in going for it. Second argument is that trials on humans are the best way to find out the real effects of a medicine. It is more accurate and time saving. Third point is that a trial that leads to a life saving medicine may become history and the name of the person who has taken that risk will be etched in golden letters.

Though it all sounds good from a medical angle, there is a human angel to it. Human life, no matter it is of an ordinary beggar or a billionaire, is the most precious thing in this world. And no one is entitled to make a test on it for the rest of the world. Secondly, who is going to bear the brunt of the after effects of such trails? Once the result is out, the patient is simply ignored. Thirdly, if it is allowed, there will be a time when human lives will be bought and sold by multi-billion pharmaceutical conglomerates. It is dangerous per se.

So arguments and counter arguments galore. Where are we actually? Clinical trial on humans is worth supporting if looked at it from a medical angle, but the dangers involved in it are equally powerful not to support it.

290 words
Ajaypeesdoc
20.11.011