When decisions are made about the effect of a drug towards the human body, the research first is scrutinized by people, who have a ethical perspective on their religious beliefs, that the group holds as an authority in the decisions of the masses. With or without the beneficial effects of a drug, the main focus here, is the power of control over the freedoms of research. Science too, has a liberty to make decisions that are based on the formula that is developed through research.
People usually focus on the humanity part of research done for the people who are thermally ill or rapidly deteriorating, it seems the ethical part is more important than the lives of the very ones who need the breakthroughs. If a morally obligated, religiously convicted, and faith driven person who protested and spoke openly to large gatherings of people, suddenly had a heart attack, and a new heart was needed to survive the attack; would that person say, “no,” because God never meant for that to be? Perhaps the answer is within the knowledge taught about ethical standards, that are continuously being refined and changed to fit a description of whatever or whoever has the power of control.
The bluff can be called, so to say, when the ethical person becomes ill, and needs medical science to cure them. “Ah, ah, ah, don’t take that aspirin,” as the finger is pointed up while the person saying this, says, “tisk, tisk, tisk.” The most the ethical person can do is say, “forgive me my sin,” and take the aspirin, or get those atypical that can relax the moral police, and those who carry a badge about knowing what God is all about. Religious devotees love to look at the world and from their pedestal look down to the world of man and speak with a thunderous voice, “No, you can’t research to save lives, for I have spoken.”
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that science is the works of the devil or a perversion of the human body. Sure science can go to far, but so can a fanatical religious leader, and a powerful politician of any country. Who’s to decide, and what happens when the research continues? Then what is a man to say about, “doing the will of God?” If there has been a separation in some countries from politics from religion, why should it be any more different with science? From here the matter is the cost of living in the expense of lives, but, so what, at least the ethical standard was met, and the protesters go home happy while people suffer and die a slow, gradual, and painful death ( that’s hereditary).
People can go against the production of medical science, yet what becomes of the whole issue when the scientist, who creates the vaccine, or cure for a terrible condition of the human body, is part of the religious whole that goes against the research? Does he not have the will of God with him; whether he be called this name or that? It’s difficult not to be bias or against one thing and for another, why is it so important, when the ones who are affected are those who are suffering from whatever disease they are labeled to have? What’s the urgency? Medical research might as well go underground and kept from the media, if for the sake of ethical standards to be not so offended.
