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.