Questions - 1 &2

Questions - 1 &2

1. An explicit requirement of the Tuskegee study was that the subjects not receive available treatment for a debilitating disease, a clear violation of normal medical practice. Can you think of any situation in which not receiving available treatment would be an ethical procedure in an experiment?
I don't think it would ever be appropriate for subjects in an experiment to not receive treatment, unless the nature of the study was strictly observation, and the subjects consented to be observed. However, I don't think the subjects should have been kept from receiving treatment if they chose to do so. Restricting subjects from receiving treatment for a disease like syphilis was definitely unethical. For example, if scientists were conducting a study on the progression of AIDS, the subjects would consent to being observed. But, if an experimental treatment became available, the subjects shouldn't be stopped from receiving treatment.

2. The Tuskegee victims were not informed -- in fact they were deliberately misinformed -- about the nature of the study in which they were participants. A basic guideline for human subject research, specified in both the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report is the requirement of informed consent. What would have constituted informed consent in the case of the Tuskegee Study? If such informed consent had been obtained from the subjects, would this remove all questions about whether the Study was ethical?
It would have been difficult to obtain informed consent from the subjects in the study, partially because many of the subjects may have been illiterate. They may not have fully understood the study; or, the fact that they would possibly be receiving medical care in a region where proper healthcare was scarce may have coerced them into "consenting" to the study. Informed consent would have to have been recorded and saved. However, even if the subjects had been completely educated about the nature of the study, I'm not sure it would have been completely ethical. For example, restricting the subjects from receiving treatment after it was available was definitely unethical, even though the study was based on observing untreated syphilis.