A classmates response to the NY Times vaccine article question:
Angela:
I do believe that not allowing Ms. Muntz to receive the vaccine for up to two years is
unethical. This issue does fall under situation ethics. If this were a situation of normal drug research where the study takes the course out for a couple of years, having Ms. Muntz wait would make more sense. One of the issues is this was a fast-paced
situation, and this study was to get the vaccine out to people quickly to help slow down the global pandemic. It is also stated that Ms. Muntz was 68, which is among the age groups that received the vaccine first. While it is understandable for a researcher to
want to see what the difference is over time between those who got the vaccine and
those with the placebo, Ms. Muntz was put at risk because of not being allowed to get
the vaccine.
Reading the Belmont report boosted my feeling that this was unethical. Under the basic ethical principles, it says to have respect for the people, which J&J did not do in this case. The doctor wanted to put the research before the person. The report also states,
“Persons are treated in an ethical manner not only by respecting their decisions and
protecting them from harm but also by making efforts to secure their well-being” (The Belmont Report, 1979). If they knew this person had the placebo and that said participant was not comfortable with not getting the vaccine during a global pandemic, that is not protecting them from harm. It is understandable for a researcher to want people to stick by their rules but this was a situational issue.
I do not think people dropping out disrupt the validity of the research. She knew that she
did not get the vaccine and she had to get a placebo because her husband was
showing symptoms. Of course, some people did not feel the effects of the vaccine, so it
is understandable to be hesitant about this. But if the record shows that she did have
the placebo, it should not matter in this situation if those who had the placebo drop out at a future date during a global pandemic. The issue is also that she stated she thought that she could get the vaccine, which means she most likely was not told the conditions of her getting the placebo. If they told the participants this first, they may not have had to worry about losing participants like this.
While getting the vaccine was crucial to slowing the spread of the pandemic at the end of the day J&J and Pfizer are businesses. They want people to take their vaccine over other companies’ vaccines. Back when the vaccine first became available it was pretty random on which one person received it. But when it came to later dates people were
able to choose, which means this was also a business issue. Of course, Pfizer would
want more people to use their vaccine than their competitor. If Pfizer was accepting the
people who are dropping out of the J&J trials, Pfizer would possibly look better to the
public as well as be able to give out more of their vaccines.
I would not say that because they were a participant they had to get early access to the vaccine, but to deny for up to two years is an issue. This was a health issue and that is
why I classify this as more of a situational ethics issue. The woman was over 65 which
would’ve been in the earlier rounds of getting the vaccine at this point anyway. It was
shown that the elderly and immune-compromised people were among those to get it on the earlier side and I agree with that. If she were a woman in her 30s without any immune compromised issues, then I would agree she should just be allowed to go with that age group who is getting the vaccine.
Asking if J&J has the obligation to tell the volunteers where they got the real shot or the
placebo shot goes back to the situational side of everything. The vaccines were helping the symptoms of Covid which at the time were primarily respiratory issues. For the safety of these participants, if the participants really wanted to know once the vaccine was approved, they should be allowed to know. During the trials before the vaccine wasbapproved, it is understandable not to share that so it does not affect the research. Given how serious the situation was they should have changed that. There should have been much better communication at the beginning of the study before anyone signed up as well. If she knew ahead of time that if she participated in the study, she would have to go years without getting the vaccine regardless of placebo or not perhaps she would not have agreed to participate. Or perhaps you could’ve asked more questions ahead of time making the company have to truly think about the consequences if they get aplacebo and are not allowed to take the vaccine for a couple of years.
References:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont report. HHS.gov.
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Links to an external site.
Zimmer, C., & Weiland, N. (2020, December 2). Many Trial Volunteers Got Placebo
Vaccines. Do They Now Deserve the Real Ones? The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/health/covid-vaccine-placebo-group.html
Post a short summary of week one here (2-3 paragraphs). For example, you can
comment on anything that surprised you, what really resonated, key takeaways,
or anything else you want to note.

Links to an external site.

Links to an external site.
Because of many of the issues and challenges we discussed last week, it has been argued that communication is more important than ever. Communication seeps its way into every system, process and routine.
1. That said, how well has your firm (or a recent one) leveraged communication.
2. What are some best practices?
3. What are areas of weakness?
Currently I am a full time graduate student in the Communication and Media masters
program but I can create an imaginary nonprofit and talk about How I worked for them as an intern for a year.
Also, don’t forget to respond to a classmate’s post:
Victoria:
I currently work for a small nonprofit with eight employees at our headquarters. The
nonprofit consists of a president, a board of directors, a CEO, and department staff,
communication is leveraged effectively within the constraints of our small team
structure. One of the best practices adopted is the ability to make decisions
independently, utilizing the flexibility that comes with our small team’s size. This
dispersed strategy creates a collaborative and engaged culture by motivating
employees to participate actively in decision-making processes. Holding regular
meetings, whether official or informal, is essential for keeping all members informed and fostering a culture of shared accountability and responsibility. This approach promotes collaboration, with regular team meetings serving to keep everyone well-informed. One challenge that I recognize is wearing too many “hats.” In small teams, people might have to take on several responsibilities, which can cause burnout and impair clear communication.