When dealing with medical research involving human subjects, the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice must be satisfied in order for the research to be ethical. The Belmont Report, The Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki, gives us standards intended to assure that research involving human subjects would be carried out in an ethical manner. The Belmont Report applies only to research conducted or funded by the United States, The Nuremberg Code is part of the law of humanity and the Declaration of Helsinki applies in the context of international law and acts as a guideline (is only advisory). Since it is unclear who is funding the research and where it is being conducted in this case, I will analyze all three of these documents.
a. Autonomy
Autonomy demands that subjects enter into the research voluntarily and with adequate information. The Belmont Report addresses the principles of autonomy as respect for persons in regards to two ethical convictions. (Belmont Report, 1979). First, we must acknowledge autonomy and individuals should be treated as autonomous persons. An autonomous person acts with self-determination or self-governance with understanding, reasoning, deliberation, and independent choice. An autonomous choice is actual governance rather than capacity for governance. An autonomous choice made intentionally with substantial understanding (comprehension) and without controlling influences (voluntary). Participants in research acting as autonomous persons are free to choose whether to participate or to withdraw from a study once apprised with adequate information regarding the research procedure, their purposes, risks and anticipated benefits.
Second, we must also protect those with diminis...
... middle of paper ...
...olate the subject’s autonomy in terms of a right to bodily integrity (LaFrance, at 866-68).
Finally, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932-73) is widely held as one of the most unethical studies ever conducted and further emphasizes that the lack of informed consent makes research unethical. In the study, researchers followed a group of poor African-American men who were infected with syphilis for more than 40 years without informing them of their disease or what the researchers were really doing and even withholding treatment (penicillin) when it became available, in order to continue their study and observe the long-term effects of the illness. The conduct of the researchers was unethical because potential participants must be informed of all aspects of the research that might reasonably influence their decision to participate in order for their consent to be valid.
Based on the video Deadly Deception the following essay will analyze and summarize the information presented from the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment. The legal medical experimentation of human participant must follow the regulation of informed consent, debrief, protection of participants, deception or withdrawal from the investigation, and confidentiality; whether, this conducted experiment was legitimate, for decades, is under question.
Ethical violations committed on underprivileged populations first surfaced close to 50 years ago with the discovery of the Tuskegee project. The location, a small rural town in Arkansas, and the population, consisting of black males with syphilis, would become a startling example of research gone wrong. The participants of the study were denied the available treatment in order further the goal of the research, a clear violation of the Belmont Report principle of beneficence. This same problem faces researchers today who looking for an intervention in the vertical transmission of HIV in Africa, as there is an effective protocol in industrialized nations, yet they chose to use a placebo-contro...
The Tuskegee Experiment is one of the unethical Health Researches done in the United States. The way the research was conducted was against people 's civil rights. Totally secretive and without any objectives, procedures or guidance from any government agency. During the time that the project was launched there were very few laws that protected the public from medical malpractice or from plainly negligence. Also the Civil Rights act did not pass until the 1960 's.
Southam’s practice, beginning with the Code’s number 1 rule, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” Other rules under the Nuremberg Code were broken as well, however all of these egregious behaviors of researchers, more so than just Southam, have influenced the tight research protocols in place today. As Dr. Hardy shared information on research protocols, she consistently referred back to a strict system of regulations that, at times, may seem a little extreme. The alternative, a system permitting researchers like Southam, would be a far harder bullet to bite. In the end, I am glad these systems are in place to try to ensure a trust between patients and
In the United States, the basis for ethical protection for human research subjects in clinical research trials are outlined by the Belmont Report developed in the late 1970’s. This document, published by the Nation Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, highlights three important basic principles that are to be considered when any clinical trial will involve human research subjects. They are; respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. (Chadwick & Gunn, 2004)
When penicillin was discovered in 1940 and was the only cure for syphilis at that time. The participants form Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment were excluded from many campaigns that were taking place in Macon County, Alabama to eliminate venereal diseases (Person Education, 2007). This experiment lasted forty years and by the end 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis (info please, 2007). The directors of this experiment used ethical, interpersona... ... middle of paper ... ...
To sum things up, the ethical demeanor of research involves respect for the safety and rights of subjects during the sequence of the trial. This includes protecting privacy and confidentiality, monitoring the condition of research subjects to assure their safety, terminating study participation in the case of hostile events, and notifying enrolled subjects about new risks, benefits, or other information that may bear upon subjects’ decisions to continue enrollment in the research. As new evidence shows itself, trial investigators and data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) can alter the study plan, initiate notice of enrolled subjects, make changes to the informed consent policies, or stop the trials earlier than intended. Investigators should soon classify a technique for ensuring effective communication between the IRB and DSMB throughout these studies.
The study took advantage of an oppressed and vulnerable population that was in need of medical care. Some of the many ethical concerns of this experiment were the lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy, deception of participants, physical harm, mental harm, and a lack of gain versus harm. One ethical problem in this experiment was that the benefits did not outweigh the harm to participants. At the conclusion of the study there were virtually no benefits for the participants or to the treatment of syphilis. We now have
Autonomy is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical reasoning. Inside these connections, it is the limit of a sound individual to make an educated, unpressured decision. Patient autonomy can conflict with clinician autonomy and, in such a clash of values, it is not obvious which should prevail. (Lantos, Matlock & Wendler, 2011). In order to gain informed consent, a patient
The principle of autonomy states, that an individual’s decision must be respected in all cases, also an individual can act freely in accordance to their plan. For example, in a case where a patient and family demands to continue medical or surgical care and a physician want the patient to stop further treatment. In this case the patient’s choice will matter the most. According to the principle of autonomy it will be the patients and family choice whether to continue or discontinue treatment. The principle of beneficence which states, “one must promote good” comes into play in this case. In accordance to beneficence the patient will not benefit from the physicians responses personally. He/she will not benefit from harming her body with more surgeries. The patient will be going against the principle non-maleficence, which states that “one must cause no harm to an individual” by causing harm to herself. In this case the physician is justified in his/her actions by discontinuing medical or surgical care to the patient because it will not it her. These principles are what healthcare provider use to help and guide patients with the ...
Informed Consent is fundamentally critical in preparation of research studies that involve human beings. Greenstein & Davis, 2013 explain that the Department of Health and Human Services require each individual who is part of the research to be informed of the potential risks, benefits, confidentiality, research contact information, and lastly that participation is open door policy. If I was submitting my research study, I would ensure that each individual has been well informed and given their full consent to participate.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
The case of Dr. Lowell and Mrs. Jackson revolves around a conflict between the doctor, who advocates the implementation of a particular treatment and the patient who disagrees with the doctor and wishes to do things her own way. The doctor feels that the suggested course of action is disastrous and threatens to have the patient declared mentally incompetent. The question now is whether or not the doctor is morally justified in taking action against the patient in order to implement the course of treatment she feels would be most effective. Is this an infringement on the autonomy of the patient or is the doctor morally obliged to do everything that he/she can possible do in order to restore the patient’s health even if that includes to go so far as to take this decision out of the hands of the patient?
In December 1946, the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg indicted 20 Nazi physicians and 3 administrators for their willing participation in carrying out the harmful research on unwilling human subjects. Thus, Nuremberg code was the first international code for the ethics to be followed during human subject research. It was permissible medical experiments implemented in August 1947. The code also provides few directives for clinical trials (3). Syphilis study at Tuskegee in 1974 was the most influential event that led to the HHS Policy for Protecti...
They used the American Psychology Association principles to Informed Consent to Research. They informed their group discussion about getting their consent to research. The researchers unite in ethics inquiries, proceedings, and resulting requirements of the APA or any affiliated state psychological association to which they belong. They were able to address confidentiality issues. They were able to avoid ethics violation (APA, 2010).