Summary of the Study
Experimentation on human subjects has always been risky, both medically and ethically, but necessary to the development of new drugs and cures. One of the first major modern situations arising from human experimentation led to the Nuremburg Trials and subsequent Nuremburg Code, created in 1947. The Nuremburg Trials were mainly concerned with the crimes of Nazi leaders; however, they also focused heavily on the experiments of Nazi doctors. The Nuremburg Code set international standards for medical research and human experimentation. The controversial Tuskegee Syphilis Study caught media attention in1972 and led Congress to release The Belmont Report. The report focused on three basic principles. One principle, respect for persons, stated that all people had the right to protection. The second principle, beneficence, stated that studies should maximize benefits while trying to decrease harm. The final principle, justice, stated that subjects for a study should not be chosen from certain groups or races. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was based on studying the disease of syphilis, a disease that was easily recognizable, but did not have effective treatments available. Early treatments were haphazard and included dangerous poisons that were often deadly. The Public Health Service began a study of syphilis in the early 1930’s in Macon, Alabama. The two-year study showed that 36% of African-Americans in Macon were infected with syphilis, a percentage much higher than the national average.In 1932, the PHS began a follow-up study in Macon. The goal of the new study was to observe the development of untreated syphilis in African-Americans. The study went on for forty years, with 616 African-American men. Four hundred and twelve were infected with syphilis, and 212 were used as controls. The subjects never knew the complete reason behind the study, and were not given treatment even after penicillin became an available treatment. The subjects that did recognize their condition were refused treatment if they tried to find it. Finally, in 1965, 33 years later, Dr. Irwin Schatz objected to the study for moral reasons. Schatz’s objection led to the creation of a review panel for the study. The panel found nothing wrong with the study and allowed it to continue. Soon after, Peter Buxtin, a specialist working on the study, resigned and contacted the Associated Press about the study. The AP released a story on the study July 25th, 1972, causing public outrage. The study was immediately ended.
13 comments:
I think that is wrong to test human subjects any time that they might be in danger of getting hurt or die. I think it was wrong of these scientists to have tested these men.
Did the 616 men in the study give their consent?
I think the men just believed they were being treated when in fact they were not.
I think it was wrong to tell them that they were being treated when they really werent because they had faith in the scientists that they were going to be treated when they really were getting worse.
I agree that you must give consent to be able to be a part of a study. It was unfair for the 616 men to not know the reason behind the study, and not receive the treatment when it became available.
I think that it's wrong to tell people that they are being treated when they are just being used as controls.
I find it unbelievable that the review panel found nothing wrong with a study where infected people were not being allowed treatment when one is available.
Testing experiments on humans especially when you know that they can be harmful is a very serious wrong decision. The African Americans with syphilis should have been given treatment when it was available no matter what information the experiment still needed to gather. Why were scientists performing the experiments, and were they actually the ones infecting people with the disease?
They new like they were part of a study but they didn't know that when they agreed to do the study they weren't going to receive treatment. They were not informed that they were going to be used to monitor the progression of the illness.
The men in the experiment, besides the controls, were already infected with the disease. They contracted it on their own; the scientist didn't give it to them. They were performing the experiment to understand the disease more and study the progression of the disease.
I think that treating people was wrong, but how else would we have advanced in studies? I am against animal testing.
Were any of the people with Syphilis not African American? Why did it affect this group only?
I think that people should know what they are getting themselves into and then they should be treated after years of waiting.Even though they were being used as a testing mechanism they should've been treated when they found something that could've helped them.
I think that the people should have been treated while they were studied. Or they shoould have at least been treated after at least 4-5 years.
Post a Comment