Medical ethics tends to be a problematic issue, particularly where certain types of research are concerned. Indeed, some practitioners hold the public good in such high regard that they violate human rights for its sake. Of particular importance here is patient consent. Indeed, this issue is central to whether medical ethics are being violated or not. If patient consent is obtained, and the researcher has provided full disclosure of the nature and risks of the study, the ethical requirements of the study have been met. Some researchers are however tempted to violate these requirements for the sake of results. An extreme case of such a violation is the Tuskegee syphilis study, which has becomes widely publicized as an example of gross human rights violations in favor of medical research. Another case to be addressed later is the one of a doctor taking blood samples from children without full disclosure to their parents. The General Medical Council (1998) is very clear on the ethical requirements for consent in the case of children or those who are incapable of making their own medical decisions.
             According to the General Medical Council (1998), the physician is to establish decision-making capacity prior to proceeding with medical investigation or treatment. It emphasizes the need to seek the help of the appropriate professional bodies if this appears to be necessary. In the case of fluctuating capacity, the Council suggests that physicians continually assess the patient's understanding and the consistency of his or her compliance with the proposed procedures. In the case of mental incapacity, the physician's assessment of the patient's best interest is subject to the Mental Health Act of 1983 and the Code of Practice of the Mental Health Commission. Controversial or experimental treatments that are unconnected to the mental disorder are subject to court approval. Mentally incapacitated patients therefore enjoy the full p...