# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

# data[].attributes.body
miss we are trying to ask question from you but you cant hear us

# data[].attributes.headline
miss check the chat box, some people are trying to ask you questions.

# data[].attributes.subject
miss check the chat box, some people are trying to ask you questions.

# data[].attributes.body
Mssssss
Mssssss
Hellloooooooo
execuse. me

# data[].attributes.body
Miss I think you mute us
we are trying to say something but you are not replying.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I think that is ethical. According to utilitarianism theory, if the action create happiness, then it is morally right.
The vaccine is effective after having human trail, which is to help more people life. Hence, its going to give happiness to the majority of people.

According to Kant theory, if the intention is good, it is morally right.
However, the human testing without asking for permission is morally wrong according to Kant theory.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the article, the Ebola Vaccines for human trial is unethical because it may bring some issues and effects for people. According to Kant theory, we must always act in a way that respects human rationality in others and in ourselves but

According to Utilitarianism theory based on the vaccines is ethical because, we should  act in ways that produce the most pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of   people affected by our actions if the vaccines can help more people to alive.

# data[].attributes.body
The first ethical issue would the treatment of the test subjects on whether their participation in human testing is voluntary or coerced through financial compensation. If coerced than this involves the firm behaving opportunistically towards the patients which violates Kant Theory where those who are financially distressed are being mistreated by those with power and influence. A sub issue to this is the amount of compensation given to patients in human testing as in this phase complications might occur. Therefore, the compensation on the patients have to mirror the risk that they are exposed. Anything less falls back to egoism theory whereby the firm is just in it to commercialise the vaccines while disregarding the lives of its patients in human testing.

The second issue the see motive of the patients in human testing whereby in this sense vaccines are tested to cure Ebola. Therefore, here it is an action to benefit the larger population therefore the risk of human testing is translated towards utilitarian theory where one action is meant to benefit all.

In my opinion, human testing is ethical provided that the patients are treated humanely which is related to Aristotle Virtue Ethics whereby a person has a right to live in a just society with respect and honesty. The crucial motive for human testing is for the lives of mankind in being safe from the virus.

# data[].attributes.body
Vaccination is ethical

# data[].attributes.body
0335942
Kant- unethical
Uti- unethical
Ego- ethical

For further explanations pls kindly refer to the other multiple good answers given 😏

# data[].attributes.body
Utilitarian theory: It would be ethical according to the utilitarian theory as a greater number of people would benefit from the development of the vaccine by jumping into human trials as lesser number of people would be infected and thus reducing the number of deaths.

Egoism theory: It would also be ethical according to egoism theory when perused through the perspective of the candidates as the individuals participating in the trials know what is best for themselves.

Kant’s theory: However, this action would not be ethical as it fails the universality imperative. This is because this action would not be acceptable if everyone did the same and skipped the animal testing. A lot of people would succumb to fatal side effects when developing a vaccine without fully comprehending the consequences of the vaccine under development

# data[].attributes.body
It is unethical because it may be inflicting harm upon others by testing a risky vaccine on them. However if consent is given based on the utilitarian theory it can be seen as ethical. - bigger picture, large amounts of people can be saved - based on deonthological theories this testing would be for the greater good. - yet kant said it is never ethical to test on humans - there are other ways to test it eventhough less accurate

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I think it is ethical. According to the utilitarianism theory, an action is ethical if it creates happiness. Once the vaccine is known to be effective after carrying out human trial, it will help save lives which will create happiness everyone. Also, the researchers have to of course get consent from the person they are going to conduct the trial experiment on in order. Proceeding without consent is still considered as unethical

# data[].attributes.body
Ebola is a rare but deadly virus that causes fever, body aches, and diarrhea, and sometimes bleeding inside and outside the body. As the virus spreads through the body, it damages the immune system and organs. Ultimately, it causes levels of blood-clotting cells to drop. This leads to severe, uncontrollable bleeding.

According to Utilitarianism theory, it ethical because the act leads to happiness as it saves people life.

According to Kants theory it is Unethical act as testing a new vaccine on people is not allowed.

According to Human rights we cannot test Vaccine on people without knowing what will be the side effects on people lives.

According to Egoism theory it is unethical as they want to introduce vaccine to earn. They don't care if the vaccine have side effects or not. They are concerned with money.

According to Ethical Relativism if the society accepts the act of testing on human then its ethical.

# data[].attributes.body
Ebola is a virus that is transmitted through the air. This means that the virus is highly contagious as numbers are doubling twice a week. Does that justify human trial for this vaccine? According to Kant theory, an act requires the right intention. Based on Kant theory, it is ethical because the creator of the vaccines isnt trying to monetise the Ebola vaccine but are genuinely trying to save lives.

Utilitarian theory states that an action is justified if it benefits the greater group or numbers. Ebola contagion spread is very fast and deadly. If using human trial means preventing future casualties or spread worldwide as a global pandemic, this will be viewed as ethical. This also depends on whether the people are willing to take the vaccine knowing it is actually a trial and they are the guinea pigs.

Ethical relativism states that an action is ethical depending society as a whole accepts it. West Africa facilities and commodities are less developed than a lot of countries. This means the medical needs are greater as people the medical care is insufficient. Thus, the people there would readily accept it as they themselves do not have much choice. However based on Human Rights, this is completely wrong as every human beings have equal rights and should not be treated as 'test subjects'. Therefore, according to human rights it is considered unethical.

In my opinion, as long as the people taking this vaccine gives their approval, human trial is ethical. This is because everyone human has the right and freedom to choose. This is supported by Kant, Utilitarian and Human Rights Theory.

# data[].attributes.body
As long as the candidates agree with the the testing, it can be conducted and considered as ethical. There must be an agreement from the candidates. Besides, people need to test it first in order to know whether the vaccine works or not.

# data[].attributes.body
Utilitarianism
greatest number of benefit towards the greatest number of people being

Kants Theory

Human rights

Concept of Consent being significance in order determine ethical morality.

Aristotles Virtue of Ethics

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, it’s ethical because most of the time vaccine could help people’s life and it may not lead people to die

# data[].attributes.body
Yes it is ethical, the vaccine need to be use first and soon can be know it is effective or not. If the government waiting for the effectiveness evidence that need time to prove it. Will be so mant dying people everyday because of the virus. This also can refer to utilitarianism theory that the government can search for volunteer and in this theory the human action will bring happiness for others.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on Utilitarianism theory, it is ethical since if the candidates are willing to test the vaccine voluntary, it will bring more benefit towards the society which if the vaccine is tested as effective, it may be used to prevent the spread of the virus.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes its ethical as an ethical relativist would argue, because if they do not test, how would they know if the vaccine is effective or not. Majority of the people would support it therefor, in this case it is ethical.
However,
Kant theory says we shouldn’t use humans as mere objects, so using human objects as candidates for trial vaccines are unethical, as a kantian would argue

# data[].attributes.body
In your opinion, human trails of candidates for the Ebola  vaccine are ethical or not ? Critically analyze the ethical issues in this case using appropriate theories. 