Ethical Issues in Research: Tuskegee Study
While it might sound shocking and quite unbelievable, there is evidence that doctors in the US at one point thought that it was okay to experiments on disabled and prison inmates. Such an experiment included giving hepatitis to mental health patients in Connecticut, injecting cancer cells into the chronically ill individual in New York, and even squirting a pandemic flu virus up the prisoners’ nose in Maryland. These horrific events occurred about 40 to 80 years ago, but their effect shock the medical fraternity. Over the years, the heinous acts have raised questions on the ethics of such practices. However, one of the events that have become a hallmark of ethical questions is the Tuskegee study. There have been several questions on the ethics of the research.
In 1932 the public health service started working the Tuskegee institute in a study that sort to record the natural history of syphilis with hopes for justifying treatment programs for African Americans (Heintzelman, 2015). The study was termed as the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis for African American males. The study involved 600 African American males, where 399 were infected while 201 were not infected (Heintzelman, 2015). The challenge that emerged with the program is that it was conducted without the patient’s informed consent. The men were told that they were undergoing treatment for bad blood, a term used then to refer to the various ailments that included syphilis, fatigue, and anemia. In reality, the men did not get treatment for the condition (Heintzelman, 2015). In exchange, they received free medical exam burial insurance and free meals. Although the project had initially been estimated to take only six months, it stretched for over 40 years.
In 1972 an exposé by the associated press about the Tuskegee study led to a public uproar. In response, the assistant sectary of health and scientific affairs formed a committee seeking to investigate the issue. The ad hoc committee found that the individual had freely agreed to be examined and receive treatment. However, the panel did not find any evidence that the individuals were informed about the study (Timmermans, 2020). It emerged that the men were misinformed and were not given all the information that would have been critical to providing informed consent. Besides, these men were not given adequate treatment for their ailment. Even when penicillin was made available to treat syphilis, the researchers never gave the medication to the subjects. The panel also found out that even when the drug was available, the individual was not given a free choice to quit the treatment.
Several ethical issues involving human studies emerged from these cases. The first issue here is informed consent. Informed consent requires that subjects be well informed about all the research facts even before they give their consent to participation. There is also the concern on how far the researcher’s obligation extends to researching subjects (Timmermans, 2020). The other issue of significant relations revolves around the possibility that residents might be put under pressure to give consent or not fully understand what they agree to. The researchers took advantage of the subjects’ social, economic conditions in which they had encountered low care levels. The study thus reflects on the ethical practices that these researchers engaged in.
In conclusion, the situation presented a clear case of ethical issues that occur during a study. While their researchers might be aware of the ethical issues that they need to consider, some would violate them. In this case, the researchers took advantage of the patients’ economic situation and seemingly misled them to being part of the study.
References
Heintzelman, C. A. (2015). The Tuskegee syphilis study and its implications for the 21st century. SocialWorker.com.https://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/The_Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study_and_Its_Implications_for_the_21st_Century/
Timmermans, S. (2020). The Engaged Patient: The Relevance of Patient–Physician Communication for Twenty-First-Century Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 0022146520943514.