Use the RESOLVEDD decision-making strategy to analyze the following case.

Make sure you consider the case in light of some of the moral theories and principles we have discussed in the class.

How much you write about each step in the method is up to you, but you should write a minimum of 750 words in totalThe RESOLVEDD Strategy for Making Ethical Decisions* 1. R Review the facts of the case. What are the details? What is the background or history? 2. E Estimate (specify) the conflict or problem present in the case. What is at issue or at stake? 3. S List main possible solutions to the case. 4. O State important and probable outcomes or consequences of each solution. What will happen? What is likely to happen? What might happen? 5. L Describe the likely impact of each main solution on peoples lives, and on the interests and concerns of entities (i.e., institutions, organizations, companies, governments and states), as well as nonhumans and the environment. Who will be benefited? Who will be harmed? Who else will be impacted and how? 6. V Explain the values upheld and those infringed by each main solution. Refer to relevant moral principles, e.g., honesty, harm, fidelity, autonomy, confidentiality, lawfulness, equal consideration of interests; Characterize salient moral rights, e.g., knowledge, privacy, life, free expression, due process, safety, property; If relevant, include consideration of the interests and rights of future generations. 7. E Evaluate each main solution in terms of outcomes, likely impact and values upheld or infringed. 8. D Decide which solution is best, state it, clarify its details, and justify it. 9. D Defend the decision against objections to its main weaknesses. *Based on Raymond Pfeiffer and Ralph Forsberg, Ethics on the Job: Cases and Strategies 4th Edition Research Involving Alzheimer Patients

Ann Wilson was the director of St. Mary's Nursing Home, a large regional center for the care of elderly people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a form of senile dementia. One day Ann received a telephone call from Dr. Sandra Selleck, who was looking for subiects to enroll in a multi-centered, randomized, controlled clinical trial sponsored by the Alzheimer's Society. Dr. Selleck was one of three investigators. The trial was intended to test a new drug, Tetrahydroaminoacridine (THA), which promises to reduce dramatically the progression rate of Alzheimer's disease. Owing to the nature of THA and the mechanisms by which it works, the investigators wanted subjects who were more or less in the middle stages of Alzheimer's, where serious impairment of mental function is in evidence but not to the point where the subject has lost complete control of all mental capacities. Patients at this stage of the disease tend to experience "intermittent competency." Given the size of the population at St. Mary's, Dr. Selleck figured that there must be a substantial number of elderly patients who met the criteria for inclusion in the study.

After explaining the nature of the proposed study, Dr. Selleck asked Ann Wilson for permission to visit St. Mary's to interview and recruit potential research subjects. She indicated that she would enroll a patient in the study only if: (a) the patient provided formal, written consent; (b) the patient's closest relative provided formal, written consent; and (c) no one on the health-care staff at St. Mary's, including Ann Wilson, had any objection to including the patient in the study. If the patient has been ruled "legally incompetent," then condition (a) would be ignored and formal consent would be sought only from the nearest relative. If, for any patient, including those who were intermittently competent, there was no relative available, then that patient would be excluded from consideration altogether.

After hearing Dr. Selleck's proposal, Ann Wilson made the following reply. "Why don't I save us all a lot of time and bother? I simply will not permit elderly parents under my care to be used as guinea pigs in a clinical trial. These are extremely vulnerable people we're talking about here, not people in their prime. They've been through enough in their lives already without being subject to scientific examination, or should I say 'exploitation.' The elderly population, especially those who are institutionalized and suffering from serious impairment of mental function, are a vulnerable group who should not be used in medical experiments, even for 'noble' purposes. I just won't allow itnot in my nursing home!"

Dr. Selleck expressed considerable surprise at this response. She indicated that without access to St. Mary's, it would be virtually impossible for her to make the appropriate contact with the elderly residents and their families. And without a significant number of recruits from St. Mary's, her sample size would not be large enough, scientifically, for her to participate in the multi-centered trial. She indicated further that the proposed trial had been examined by her Hospital's Research Ethics Board, who had given it their whole-hearted endorsement. It had also been approved by the Research Ethics Boards from which her other two investigators were required to receive approval. Despite these appeals, Ann Wilson would not budge. "Not in my nursing home, she repeated.

Was Ann Wilson right to object to Dr. Selleck's proposed clinical trial?