4 one page evaluations for 4 papers due in 12 hours.

The idea of a soul is a complex one. First of all, because there is not one definition that people can consensually agree on. Secondly, because what exactly a soul entails or what its purpose it has is controversial. And lastly, because no one can say for sure who has a soul: humans? Animals? Trees? It could be thought that to have a soul is to have duality of the body and mind, or to have an after life, or maybe to have the capacity for sympathy. Personally I believe it is to have the capacity for sympathy because to have empathy or sympathy is to relate to others, which is ultimately the basis of our mortality. In the case of ethical medicinal practices, the role of a soul and the ability to empathize and relate to others is key.

The amount of limitations that should be put medical research for humans is ultimately a question of ethics. If the above definition of a soul can be at least somewhat agreed on, then it can also be said that humans must have a soul and must have the ability to relate to others. So in conducting medical research on humans, most would think that the conductor would use his empathy and overall knowledge of human mortality to make a decision of what is ethically right.

However it is not that simple. Just as human relations are a large part in our mortality, so are individual opinions and diversity of opinion. In anthropological terms, diversity of opinion can be seen as a manifestation of culture. Culture categorizes us into groups based on many different aspects, including environment, religion, language, etc., and ultimately shapes our views and beliefs on virtually everything. In this respect I think the topic of beneficence cannot simply be reduced to ethics but more narrowly, to a respect and acceptance for all cultures.

This concept is clearly demonstrate in the Yanomami case study because the researchers' idea of what is ethical (based on their western culture) is very different from that of the Yanomami tribe. The researchers' intentions were all good, in fact they both wanted to use their research to benefit the Yanomami themselves, but there is a large cultural gap which they ignored; therefore counteracting their good intentions and offending the very people they were trying to help.

Regretfully these sort of cultural and ethical boundaries are often overlooked. So while one might think its common sense to make the people you are researching your first ethical priority, the vast cultural differences don't make this such a black and white situation, thus making a demand for such review boards. The main principled argument that most people would agree with is that no research should be done on humans without the subjects consent, regardless of its potential revolutionary benefits. On a similar note, it should also be in the interest of the boards to measure the amount of risk involved with the research to its potential benefits and make sure they are consistent with each other.

All in all, I think it is in the researchers best interest to make their subject their strongest ethical tie and therefore would put my trust in them to make certain decisions with a heightened sensitivity to cultural differences in the gray areas of medical research. But boards should still have knowledge of research being conducted as well as they should under no circumstances allow research without the subjects clear consent.

Letter A, Page 1