Ethics: Informed Consent in "Pigeon Wars"
Informed consent is vital to the role of ethics and morality issues, but without all the information on any given subject, it is difficult to make a decision based on informed consent. As author Roach notes about shooting cadavers, "Then again, if you're planning to shoot guns at them, it might be good to run that up the flagpole and get the a-okay" (Roach 146) from surviving relatives. This is the sticky part of informed consent issues such as these. Most relatives would not sign consent forms if they knew their loved ones' bodies might be used to prove the validity of weapons, rather than used to enhance military effectiveness. Yet, without the cadavers, testing of some items, such as bulletproof vests, is difficult if not impossible. Revealing information in a case like this is like a time bomb. Too much information could result in a lack of cadavers for viable research needs, while too little information could result in lawsuits and stress in the remaining family. The role of withheld information in Roach's article is the implication that loved ones may never know what happens if they donate their relative's body to science, and should they know. It seems most people donate their bodies to help save
Obviously, most people would baulk if they knew this is what was going to happen to their loved one, and so, the role of missing information in this case is critical, because eventually it could lead to a breakdown or disappearance of the entire system. He writes, "As we learn to recognize each city as an ecosystem, we may be more willing to sustainably control these problematic populations as a wildlife manager might, rather than eradicating them or shooing them around as exterminators do" (Mooallem 1). In the case of the pigeons, there is important information missing, and the author had decided to leave that out. Thus, not disclosing this information threatens medical and military research. Do they eat enough seed to create an overgrowth of some plants if they were gone from the landscape? Do their droppings serve as vital nutrients to some natural vegetation? These and other implications are not covered. Without knowing this could occur, family members do not have all the information and cannot make an informed decision. There is another ethical issue at work in "Pigeon Wars," as well. If they found out what happened, and were never told, it could cloud the entire medical cadaver industry. the lives of others, rather than serve as shooting range dummies. Do researchers and authors really have the right to withhold information that could be vital in the decision making process? That is the real informed consent issue in these cases. Because of this, they can make a decision, but it will not be based on informed consent. How much of the population do not care? This is another important, even vital piece of information that is missing in this article, and it means the reader does not know all the facts or implications of the case. Thus, the role of missing information muddies the waters and the ethics of pigeon removal. However, he never shows the reader if there are others who are simply ambivalent to the pigeons, and do not care if they are removed or not. Who has the right to choose what information is released and what is not, and how does that affect those who must make an informed decision? These are important questions that have no good answer, which both of these articles clearly indicate.
Common topics in this essay:
Pigeon Wars,
Consent Informed,
informed consent,
missing information,
roach notes,
informed decision,
role missing information,
decision based informed,
author roach notes,
based informed consent,
loved ones,
roach 146,
information missing,
author roach,
happen pigeons,
role missing,
|
Acceptance Essays
