The case, “Research Involving Alzheimer Patients,” revolves around the enrollment of elderly people with middle stages of Alzheimer’s disease as subjects for a research project that assesses the effectiveness of a new drug at treating Alzheimer’s. For patients to be added to the study, the investigators required consent from the patients themselves, consent from their closest relatives, and approval from the medical staff at St. Mary’s (Thomas, 129). If some patients were labeled as “legally incompetent,” only consent from the relatives was necessary. One dilemma related to this situation involves whether the medical staff should or should not object to the recruitment of their patients for this study.

The medical staff could argue that it is necessary to object to the recruitment process to protect the patients from being exploited. According to the National Institute of Aging, Alzheimer’s includes various symptoms that range from memory loss and confusion to the inability to perform daily tasks such as getting dressed. As they progress, these issues can lead to institutionalization and to the patients believing that they are helpless and are a burden to society. It may be true that the participants are, thus, consenting primarily because of this feeling that they are no longer able to contribute to society, so they think that by enlisting, they will be considered “valuable.” The medical staff may become concerned about the patients being exploited as research subjects due to this attitude.  Moreover, in scenarios where patients are “legally incompetent” and the relative provides the consent, the medical staff could choose to object if they are doubtful of the relative’s judgment.

There are also multiple reasons for the medical staff to not object to the researchers recruiting subjects from their facility. One reason would include them potentially intruding on the patients’ autonomy. In their book, Beauchamp and Childress define respect for autonomy as an important principle that involves respecting and supporting autonomous decisions (13). In this scenario, if the patients give their consent to participate in the study, the staff would be ignoring their autonomy by objecting. Furthermore, if a patient is ruled “legally incompetent,” but the closest relative provides consent, an objection by the staff could also be controversial. In addition, all the Research Ethics Boards endorsed this project (Thomas, 130). Additionally, it is important to consider the fact that the patients’ participation could result in treatment of their Alzheimer’s if the results from the study demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. This potential discovery would also lead to the treatment of many other individuals who have this disease. Without the involvement of these patients, Dr. Selleck argued that there might not be a sufficient sample size. Assuming this is true, the objection from the medical staff would prevent the researchers from investigating a potentially life-changing drug for all Alzheimer’s patients including those from St. Mary’s.  Ultimately, I believe that the disadvantages of an objection significantly outweigh the benefits, so Ann Wilson and her staff should not have objected to the recruitment process.

Worked Cited:

“Alzheimer’s Disease Fact Sheet.” National Institute on Aging. NIH, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2015.

Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Thomas, John, Wilfrid J. Waluchow, and Elisabeth Gedge. Well and Good: A Case Study Approach to Health Care Ethics. 4th ed. N.p.: Broadview, 2014. Print.