Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 29, 2002)
H E BAIiJ Opinion 5B Monday, April 29, 2002 umans deserve animal rights KATHERINE TUCKER f inical testing is not as safe as it is profitable S ^|ome people have wanted to be | on the forefront of the medical frontier but not put forth the :ffort and patience required to obtain i seven-year degree. Now by loaning heir bodies to research, they can nake medical news. However, the )ictures of such patients may appear in the obituaries, rather han on the front page. According to Time magazine, in 1999 four people of reason- ibly good health submitted themselves to the research of clini- :allechnicians and wound up dead. As cases like this have sur faced in recent years, it has become apparent that the rights of human subjects are not being adequately addressed, if they are addressed at all. According to a patient information group, CenterWatch, more than 20 million people participated in more than 60,000 clinical trials in the past year. It is time for the gov ernment to get involved in the regulation of clinical trials, or the medical industry will continue to poke, prod and kill without regulations or punishments. ^Klinical trials do not always involve testing innovative medica tions. Many times, testing is used to discover the effects of a chemical on the human body, or experiments are done to further thelknowledge of science. In one such case. Dr. Alkis Togias of Bayview Medical Center wanted to observe airway irritation in iwthmatics. He presented a trial to the institutional review board that proposed human inhalation of the chemical irritant hexam- ethjmium, and it passed. According to Time, nine months later, one of the volunteers, Ellen Roche, died of respiratory failure. The government’s interest was then sparked, but this fatality could Hir P r .- have been avoided through strict enforcement of regulations. s ^ad EAnother clinical trial that risked human exposure to a chemical -riday me: was a 1998 trial that involved a large number of college-aged Baylor..Nebraskans who were paid $460 each to swallow a pill containing game pesticide. They ingested the active chemical in Raid, which was it. Firstpie later discovered to cause brain damage in laboratory rats as well as weakness and vomiting in children. Before a drug is tested on humans, it should be tested on animals. Had these adults known of Jewelry possibility of brain damage, they may not have eagerly partici- sale Prices' P atet ^ ^' s w * t ^ confusing release forms and unclear details that vet MM sub jects are finding themselves in worse condition than :Wa'cB*( b |“™ th f n ' edic . ations - lOOcom ■ Also ' budget increases have left medical researchers with end- uaranteei * ess 0 PP or t un >ties to create new drugs, and the lack of regulations ——has left them with endless possibilities to test without fearing per- -sonal responsibility. It is estimated that about one-fourth of all ipter oftl« experimental trials have no governmental regulation, as stated in ntersAsMcjTime. With people volunteering their bodies to help further sci ence as well as receive treatments, it is essential that they be pro tected in case of an unforeseen response. ■ Many people participate in clinical trials due to terminal illness and a lack of options for survival. It is understandable that if death is imminent, the fear of taking a risk with an experimental drug is usually not as significant. However, in recent years, it was discov ered that certain drugs have instilled a false hope in patients, and in some cases, sped up mortality, needaride' Recently, this issue made its way to Congress, and the fight has y Baker begun to see whether humans will be afforded the same protection 199 ate under' mday. field wasu my fira: or again."! the nerve; vas defir.,:: d Klam, (she ha:; as last; 1 leaves aatting av, !y loves to . said. "Sli; d I love to meeting pril 30 m. kers . Ave.) that animals are afforded. With so much concentration on animal rights, researchers have taken advantage of lost interest in human rights. It is up to Congress to make human testing an issue on the American agenda. These bills will detery mine the worth of human life and whether the government will begin protecting its citizens. Katherine Tucker is a sophomore general studies major. ONE j )NAL m , \ VAW Tip the balance Victim’s right amendment will offset the scales Discard dolls of terror Children do not need toys depicting terrorists uzahs iductions 5 Rupp* | nes Jewelry rrafts anil ITIieWorUjj Aggi^ js next W e it mai^ OIS yroom g of tele- ards onlf 1 4:30 idpaV aS ' s accept dharmaraj indurthy A ccording to the Justice Department, more than 6 million people were victims of violent crime in 2000. To redress supposed inequities between the rights of criminals and the rights of vic tims, President Bush has thrown support behind a victims’ rights amendment authored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jon Kyi. While the sentiments of such an amendment are not without virtue, such a drastic measure would be a severe detriment to the justice system, both in prac tice and in principle. In a speech at the Justice Department, Bush announced his espousal of the Feinstein- Kyl amendment proposal. He contended that state and federal law insufficiently protects vic tims’ rights. Since the rights of the accused are detailed in the Constitution, it is fitting that the rights of the victims also be enumerated there. Among the Proposed rights are the notice °f public proceedings regarding the crime or the release or escape of the accused; the right to be present at those proceed ings; the right to be heard at an y public release, plea, sen tencing and pardon proceed ings, and the right to be notified °t decisions that could impact the victims’ safety, their interest in avoiding delays and claims of restitution from the accused. It is a matter of debate whether the federal and state laws are currently sufficient. What Feinstein and Kyi charac terize as “a ragged patchwork across the country,” Colorado Attorney General Dave Kopel and Defense Attorney Elisabeth Semel label “carefully crafted statutes that respect the diversity of the 50 states.” Regardless of this complicated point of fact, certainly state law is potentially more effective. Even if Feinstein and Kyi are correct, bad state laws imply a need for better state laws, not a sweeping Constitutional amendment. The American justice system is weighted toward the accused. Better a guilty man freed than an innocent man imprisoned. That is why the Constitution carefully delineates the rights of the accused so they cannot become victims of the state. By allowing a victims’ rights amendment, this precarious bal ance is profoundly upset. This is not a subdued state or federal law that carefully shifts the weight toward prosecution but rather a sudden and climactic counterbalance that can jeop ardize the entire system. A mighty blow will be dealt to one fundamental ethic ot jus tice, the presumption of inno cence. The idea of a victim is ambiguous, at least before trial. One of the consequences of a trial is to discover whether or not the accused has made any one a victim. To give the victim constitutional rights before guilt has been ascribed, at bail hear ings for example, is to presume that the accused has victimized someone and hence undermines the presumption of innocence. It is also important to note that not all victims are equal. What about the battered wife who kills her husband, perhaps out of self-defense, or the raped woman who takes revenge on her attacker? A Constitutional amendment cannot accommodate such diversity among court cases. Moreover, it is intrinsic in amending the Constitution that litigation will follow. With the ambiguities in the idea of a vic tim, it is certain that numerous cases and appeals will be filed at the cost of the taxpayer before new precedents better define the amendment. Amending the Constitution always should be a last resort. Broad legislation can have sweeping effects for better or for worse. In the interest of jus tice and practicality, victims’ rights should be left to more specific state laws. Rather than working to console victims after the fact, perhaps govern ment would better spend its efforts preventing victimization before the fact. Dharmaraj Indurthy is a junior physics major. F or $26.95 terrorism can be created in the home. The Hero Builder toy company is marketing hero and villain dolls online. These dolls mock terrorist attacks, and toy makers should remove them from the market. Whether it is intentional or not, these toys are marketed toward children. Children view toys as safe and fun and as a means to fuel their imagination during play time. When children play with dolls that replicate terrorists, their view of the real world and play become skewed. The Hero Builder Website shows “Our Hero,” President Bush, choking a terrorist. These dolls do not give children an accurate depiction of ethnic groups. The villain dolls negatively depict the minority groups in America by portraying them as our ene mies. Children associate these dolls with the groups they represent, not necessarily with the individual. As this nation strives to erase racial barriers, they are built just as quickly with something as simple as a doll. Children should learn about terrorism and foreign affairs from education in school and reliable news sources. They should not scrape their only knowledge of world affairs from a doll and toy maker’s opinionated write up. Hero Builder, best known for advertis ing personalized dolls to consumers, has come out with a new line of dolls. Bush and Osama bin Laden top the list as the toy maker’s best sellers. Other dolls in the line include former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The dolls come com plete with catchy names and personalized wardrobes. What do these dolls say about how America views terrorism? The Hero Builder Website shows bin Laden in a pink dress labeled the “Terrorist in Drag,” trying to add humor to a subject that is anything but funny. There is not a single ounce of humor for families of the people who lost their lives or for AND! BACA those who die every day. To cover their own reputation. Hero Builder says they were inspired by heroes and villains yet their figures are “fictitional and do not depict any actual person.” By claiming that the bin Laden doll is not actually him, although their Website refers to him several times, ethic groups who look similar to the doll are further disgraced. People may see these dolls as humorous and making fun of bin Laden; however, these dolls have no positive purpose. They do not bring up the morale of Americans, nor do they make terrorists feel any shame or regret for what happened. By turning These dolls mock terrorist attacks, and toy makers should remove them from the market. them into comical dolls, America views terrorists in the same jovial way we see Britney Spears and ’NSync, and has missed the seriousness of our present terrorist situ ation. War is viewed as minuscule, and the soldiers who fight for our country have been made a mockery in the eyes of those they are fighting for. The nation needs heroes who promote unity and inspiration in our country. Hero Builders should respectfully pull the line of dolls off the market and invest in real American heroes. Andi Baca is a senior journalism major.