Response to Student’s post
The term ‘vulnerable population’ is defined differently by many people and brought about arguments on its meaning. However, just like the post articulates the definition regardless of which context should always envelop the protection of populations’ welfare and health, such as expectant women, mentally incapacitated people, and economically or informatively (Shivayogi, 2013). The mentioned population requires paramount care, particular additional considerations, and increases safeguarding if they are involved in a clinical(xxx0.
By the post suggesting that the inclusion of this disadvantaged population in research is a public health-related ethical violation, it means that in this evolving world we are in today, they are most likely to be left out of crucial researches that would bring about insight and innovation that would help in solving their health problems.
Considering this, in a case where a vulnerable group is involved, such as the example of syphilis studies in Tuskegee, critical measures and keen monitoring is required to ensure that the research is carried out ethically to avoid violations such as the ones committed in Tuskegee case (CDC, 2020). The participants in the research need to be well-versed and protected from any contingencies that may arise. Strict enforcement of public health laws and protocols is needed and fundamental infrastructure development to detect and mitigate predicaments and adversities on health (Claeson & Folger, 2008).
References.
CDC (2020). U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee. The Tuskegee Timeline. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm
Claeson, M., & Folger, P. (2008). Health Issues of the UN Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved from:https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and- dentistry/vulnerable-population
Shivayogi P. (2013). Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard. Perspectives in clinical research, 4(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.10638