tuskegee experiment

Tuskegee Debate

Opening Argument:

The Tuskegee Study was designed to analyze the progression of “untreated syphilis in the Negro Male”. the U.S government promised 400 African American men free treatment of Bad Blood. These men, most whom lived in poverty, no educated and had never seen a doctor before. The men were only told they were being tested for “Bad Blood” which does not declare the true meaning of their fatal illness. Is this considered ethical? No, because the men were not aware of there true illness, syphilis, how dangerous it could be, and the harms it could cause if not treated. Half of these men didn’t even know they had syphilis. They were misinformed about the nature of the study in which there were participants. A basic guideline for human subject research, specified both in the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report is the requirement of informed consent. One survivor quoted, “I don’t know what they used us for. I ain’t never understood the study.”

This project was designed to only last 6 - 9 months, but went on for 40 years from 1932 to 1972. Most of all, for 40 years, from the original 400 African men, 28 men have directly DIED from syphilis, and more than 100 were dead from related complications. 40 wives had been infected, and 19 children had been born with congenital syphilis. In the Nuremberg code of ethic, it states that “experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering. No experiment should be believed that death or disabling injury will occur.”

What Knowledge was gained from this 40 year experiment? Where was the science behind this experiment? The doctor’s clearly understood that bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercury were dangerous and poisonous but continuously gave the men the medicine. In such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement. No new drugs were tested to cure syphilis. It took almost forty years before someone involved in the study took a hard and honest look at the end results, reporting that “nothing learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic mission of controlling venereal disease in the United States.” Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”









Second Argument

When a reliable drug to cure syphilis became available in 1942, the men were withheld from obtaining this medicine. Why did the PHS refuse to give the male the correct medicine that could obtain or cure the infection? A few men who questioned the study’s non-therapeutic protocol were warned the “dangers” of taking Penicillin. The PHS and the doctors deliberately LIED to the men, and gave them false information. This abuses the right and regulations of the Nuremberg code of ethics.

If they did find some implications in this project, WHY did they continue on with the project? Why did they allow 28 men to die? And over 100 to die from implications? Yes, they had a purpose, the purpose was to cure syplilis

In 1965, 33 years after the study’s initiation, Dr. Irwin Schatz became the FIRST medical professional to formally object to the Study on moral grounds. The PHS ignored his complaint. Peter Buxtin, started questioning the morality of the study also, but the PHS recommended that the study continued. If it wasn’t for him, to contact an associate press, and to make the problem public, they would probably still continue on with the experiment.

The Tuskegee study group decided to salvage their work and perform a prospective study equivalent to the Oslo Study. This was not inherently unethical; since there was nothing the investigators could do therapeutically at the time, they could study the natural progression of the disease as long as they did not harm their subjects. They reasoned that the knowledge gained would benefit humankind. In the end, however, they did harm their subjects, by depriving them of appropriate treatment after it had been discovered. The study was characterized as "the longest non-therapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history."










Summary

The Tuskegee experiment was deliberately unethical. The men’s status did not warrant ethical debate. They were subjects, not patients; clinical material, not sick people. It would have been understandable if these men were aware of the full detail of the experiment. Human subjects have a right to informed consent, protection from harm, privacy and the benefit of the knowledge gained from the research. These men were denied everything that the ethical standards represented. The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. One of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”






Yes. This experiment was racist, inhumane and unethical. The debate was to find out if syphilis affected the neurological functions of whites and the cardiovascular systems of blacks. A study proved the opposite that cardiovascular damages were more common while neurological dysfunctions was rare. The study began in 1928 with the Julius Rosenwald and the findings regarding the whites were published in 1929. Yet, a study that was intended to last 6 to 9 months lasted 40 years. The fact that whites still ruled blacks back then along with poverty, lack of health care and education made them willing yet uniformed

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”

Although the PHS touted the study as one of great scientific merit, from the outset its actual benefits were hazy. It took almost forty years before someone involved in the study took a hard and honest look at the end results, reporting that “nothing learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic mission of controlling venereal disease in the United States.”
When the experiment was brought to the attention of the media in 1972, news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”