Question: 5. A University Professor Admitted For Stroke Was Saved After Instituting Life Saving Measures. He Needs Further Treatment Otherwise, He Would Deteriorate, But He Is Refusing Further Treatment Even After A Thorough Explanation By His Adult Son, While, In The Hospital, He Seemed To Forget Essential Information About His Illness, Forgot His Age And His …

5. A university professor admitted for stroke was saved after instituting life saving measures. He needs further treatment otherwise, he would deteriorate, but he is refusing further treatment even after a thorough explanation by his adult son, While, in the hospital, he seemed to forget essential information about his illness, forgot his age and his wife’s name, and was confused about the day of the week. However, he was in continuous telephone contact with his laboratory at the university, guiding the young researchers. The treating doctor is confused about the mental status of the patient. Analyse the situation keeping yourself in the place of the treating doctor and answer the following: a) Describe the ethical dilemma in the given situation. b) What action would you choose? c) Explain the reason for your answer describing the theory of moral reasoning. A group of researchers from a university, started a “Diabetes Research Project” in a tribal community. The community was living in a remote part of Arizona, USA. The community population had a high rates of Type II Diabetes mellitus. The participants were informed that the Diabetes Project was aimed at; – Collecting and testing of blood samples · Find the genetic association between genetic make-up of the community and the diabetes risk. Followed by health education and counselling for the community. After several years of study, the researchers were not successful in finding a genetic link to Type II Diabetes. They then used the blood samples containing DNA for other unrelated studies such as studies on prevalence of schizophrenia, migration, and inbreeding, all of which are taboo topics for the tribal people. The informed consent didn’t mention anything about these unrelated studies. The tribe came to know about this, when a member of the tribe, who was a participant in the Diabetes Project, attended a lecture at the university a few years later, where she learned the samples were used for these studies. The tribe filed a law suit against the university. 1. Explain the ethical issues in this case scenario. 2. Explain what is vulnerability. Describe the factors which made the tribal people vulnerable? 3. What should have been done ideally by the researchers at the university? (Key words: Autonomy, Therapeutic misconception, Community consent, Trust, Vulnerability factors, Stigmatization etc.)