Jain , VivekNaudiyal, Rashmi2019-09-252019-09-252012-03-212012-010975-5691http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/184254"The movie raises several key ethical issues in medical practice. Professor Aniruddh fails to respect the autonomy of Abhimanyu, the individual, and his ability to make decisions with regard to his own health and future. He acts in total disregard of the principle of beneficence, as well as the prohibition on maleficence, both key principles of medical ethics. Abhimanyu does not give his voluntary consent to being the study subject for the experiment. As far as biomedical research is considered, the professor does possess professional competence to conduct such an experiment but he is not able to justify how he minimised the risks involved for the subject. He tries to rationalise his actions by saying that he was acting to maximise public interest, but is unable to establish transparency and total responsibility. Although the film tries to deal with too many issues in a short span of time, it is realistic in its portrayals. Powerful performances by the actors force viewers to empathise with both victim and perpetrator, at one point or the other. Long after its unexpected climax, one continues to think about the issues raised by the film. It manages to highlight abhorrent practices such as ragging and unethical human experimentation in the field of medicine."(pg 65)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderMedical students as guinea pigsethics educationmedical ethicsBioethicsSocial ethicsSexual orientation/genderMedical ethicsHealth ethicsArticle