This week, you learned about the rigorous process of clinical trials that test new. Do patients with no other treatment options, particularly those who are not able to participate in a clinical drug trial, have a moral right to unproven drugs? This is mainly about whether patients who are NOT part of a clinical drug trail (but are terminally ill) should be allowed to access the same experimental drugs as patients who are participating in a drug trail. In other words, do these patients have a moral right to the same drugs available to patients who are participating in a clinical trial? Create an argument that explains and defends your view on this issue. In addition to reviewing your textbook, you are encouraged to locate additional resources in the Capella library, your public library, or authoritative online sites to provide additional support for your viewpoint. Be sure to weave and cite the resources throughout your work. You’ll find some info in Chapter 2 of the Munson textbook (especially pp. 67-69). And there are some excellent articles about the pros and cons in the articles linked on the homepage of Week 3. And you can include your own research results. Please don’t forget to apply ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, Non-malfeasance, etc). You don’t need to apply them all, of course, you can select 2 or 3 you think are most relevant to this topic. You can use them to evaluate the different sides of the debate and to support your own position on the issue. By the way, please feel free to apply moral theories (utilitarianism, Ross’ ethics, et) from Week 1 if you are interested in those or find one or two relevant to this topic.

Address the following points:

• Identify moral theories (from Week 1) and ethical principles (from Week 2) that help shed light on the ethical problems raised by expanded access and that best support your own position.
• Explain how the principle of informed consent is relevant to the issue.
• Explain the costs and benefits of making unproven, unapproved experimental drugs available to patients not participating in clinical drug trials.
  • Consider the costs and benefits not only to the individual patients who take these drugs but also potential costs and benefits to other patients.
• Articulate arguments using examples for and against offering pre-approved drugs to wider pools of patients.
  • Support your view using ethical theories or moral principles (or both) that you find most relevant to the issue.
• Exhibit proficiency in clear and effective academic writing skills.

Assignment Requirement -Complete APA format, 3-5 pages double spaced, Font Time New Roman, 12, Page much have Title of your paper (Bold), Introduction (For introduction make sure to talk about everything that you will be addressing), Level 1 Headings (ensure you utilized for the major points that you will be covering in the paper. Utilized a short phrase from the criteria in the grading rubric as your level 1 heading. Level II Headings (Level II headings are small points within the level 1 heading. The level II heading should be a very short phase of information that expands on the information from level 1). Conclude (conclude this paper by reiterating what you covered in your paper). References- insert to add your references.