Ethical Analysis of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Introduction
In this essay, we will focus on the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment as the selected scenario for discussion. This experiment, conducted by the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) between 1932 and 1972, violated several ethical principles and types of ethics. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment is a tragic and significant example of unethical conduct in medical research, highlighting the violation of autonomy, beneficence, justice, and medical ethics.
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Chapter 11 of the Olden text discusses organizational culture and ethics. There are 3 scenarios provided in the PowerPoint for Ch. 11: Tuskegee syphilis experiment (YouTube video) Utah nurse refusing to let blood be drawn from unconscious patient (YouTube video) University of Maryland Medical System scandal (short news article)please choose 1 of the 3 scenarios, and explain which of the ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence) and which of the types of ethics (medical, professional, managerial, and social responsibility) were violated in the scenario that you chose. There is no word count minimum on this post (feel free to use bullet points), but I would like for you to tell which scenario you chose and explain why you chose the ethical violations that you did.
Just from $13/Page
Scenario: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Reason for Selection
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment is a historically significant case that sheds light on the violation of ethics in medical research. It is essential to discuss this scenario to understand the grave consequences that arise when ethical principles and professional responsibilities are disregarded.
Ethical Violations
Autonomy
– The participants in the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment were denied their autonomy. They were not informed about the nature of the study or its potential risks and benefits.
– Autonomy entails respecting individuals’ rights to make informed decisions about their healthcare. In this case, the participants were denied the opportunity to give informed consent or decline participation, compromising their autonomy.
Beneficence
– The principle of beneficence emphasizes promoting the well-being of individuals and preventing harm. However, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment failed to uphold this principle.
– Participants with syphilis were intentionally left untreated, even after effective treatments (such as penicillin) became widely available. This resulted in unnecessary suffering and the progression of the disease, which contradicts the principle of beneficence.
Justice
– The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment violated the principle of justice by engaging in discriminatory practices. The study was conducted exclusively on African American men, targeting a vulnerable population without providing fair and equal access to treatment (Mata et al., 2016).
– By singling out a specific racial group, the study perpetuated systemic injustices and racial discrimination, further exacerbating existing inequalities.
Nonmaleficence
– Nonmaleficence refers to the duty to do no harm. In the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, harm was inflicted on the participants by deliberately withholding necessary treatment.
– The researchers were aware of the available treatment options but chose not to provide them, allowing the progression of the disease and resulting in severe health complications, disabilities, and even death.
Types of Ethics
Medical Ethics
– The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment violated medical ethics by intentionally deceiving participants and denying them appropriate treatment for their condition.
– The duty of medical professionals is to prioritize the well-being and health of their patients. However, in this case, the researchers failed to fulfill their ethical responsibilities towards the participants.
Professional Ethics
– Professional ethics involve upholding moral and ethical standards within a specific profession. The researchers involved in the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment failed to demonstrate professional ethics (Paul & Brookes, 2015).
– They disregarded their obligation to act in the best interest of their patients, prioritizing their research objectives over the well-being of the participants.
Managerial Ethics
– Although not directly applicable to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, managerial ethics are crucial in preventing unethical conduct within organizations.
– The leaders and managers involved in the experiment were responsible for ensuring that ethical guidelines were followed and intervening when unethical practices were observed. Their failure to do so allowed the unethical study to continue for several decades.
Social Responsibility
– The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment demonstrated a severe lack of social responsibility. The researchers had a responsibility to society to conduct research that would benefit the general population and advance medical knowledge (Katz et al., 2008).
– Instead, they exploited vulnerable individuals without regard for the potential harm caused to the participants or the broader implications for society.
Conclusion
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the critical importance of upholding ethical principles and types of ethics in medical research and healthcare. By violating principles of autonomy, beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence, as well as failing to adhere to medical, professional, and social responsibility ethics, this study represents a significant breach of trust and an enduring reminder of the profound ethical consequences that can arise from such violations. It is essential to learn from such past transgressions and ensure that ethical considerations guide future medical research endeavors to protect the rights and well-being of all individuals involved.
References
Katz, R. V., Green, B., Kressin, N. R., Kegeles, S. S., Wang, M., James, S. A., Russell, S. L., Claudio, C., & McCallum, J. M. (2008). The Legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Assessing its Impact on Willingness to Participate in Biomedical Studies. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 19(4), 1168–1180. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.0.0067
Mata, R., Cardesa, A., & Lora, F. (2016). Good Clinical Practice in Nonprofit Institutions. In Good Clinical Practice in Nonprofit Institutions. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-803115-5.00005-x
Paul, C., & Brookes, B. (2015). The Rationalization of Unethical Research: Revisionist Accounts of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the New Zealand “Unfortunate Experiment.” American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), e12–e19. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2015.302720
