University of Louisiana Health Care Ethics Discussion Questions & Responses
Red attached file and watch video before answering the questions.
There should be absolutely no spelling or grammar errors. You may use your book or other resources, but you must cite the resource(s) both in-text and a reference list per APA guidelines. Minimum 250 words for initial post. Minimum 150 words for each student response (2)
1. Carefully analyze this case. When you examine the paper and the appendix, what information appears to have been gained from this study? Th at is, what kind of argument can be made for the benefits of the study?
2. What do you believe were the motives for the people to become involved in the study, specifically: The subjects? The PHS personnel? The Tuskegee staff ? The Macon County physicians? Nurse Rivers?
3. What kind of criticisms can you offer of this study?
4. What were the factors underlying the cessation of the project?
5. Could this project (or one similar to it involving AIDS or radiation effects) be conducted today?
Post your discussion and then respond to the postings of 2 other students. What are your thoughts on the ethical controversy item he/she posted? Do you see other implications of the ethical controversy?
I will not be able to upload the students post for the response to them until I have uploading my initial response and then waiting 30 minutes. I will upload the two posts then.
POS 1
So far only one other student has made a post, I’m still waiting for one more. Here’s the first one though! 150 word reply. What are your thoughts on the ethical controversy item he/she posted? Do you see other implications of the ethical controversy?Originally, the Tuskegee Syphilis study’s intention was to identify and treat the disease. None of the men knew that they were a part of this study, all they knew was that they were going to be provided free health care and treatment for “bad blood.” When the men were diagnosed with syphilis the doctors never informed them nor treated them for it. I think that is very wrong and this approach was completely against patient’s rights. There was however, important information gained from this study. The study showed that the men spread the syphilis to their wives and when the babies were born they had syphilis too. Also, over 100 people died from not being treated. Would have we known this information without conducting this study? We may never know. I believe that the doctor’s motives were unethical and they could have gone about the study in a different way. It was beneficial in several ways but it also cost the lives of many. I understand that the times were different in the 20th century, but the doctors were technically killing people, which is murder, and the people did not even know nor have a say. After watching the video and reading the article I am very optimist that a similar study could be going on today regarding AIDS or even autism. I am sure it would be to a certain extent, however, you never really know these days. I hope for all of our sake, that we are not a part of this study.
POST 2
here is the second students reply. I’m sorry it took so long! After reviewing and studying the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, it is apparent that researchers did not respect the primary ethical principles of human research. Violation of all three ethical principles (respect of persons, beneficence, and justice) is apparent throughout the process of the experiment. The most obvious moral issue stems from the fact that “participants were lied to about their condition, lied to about the treatment they were receiving, and selected based on race, gender, and economic class.” This demonstrates the violation of the first ethical principal-Respect. It is clear in the fact that participants were not told the purpose of the study or given an explanation of terminology. Researchers also failed to inform persons that they had syphilis, meaning they had to test them without their consent. The Principle of Beneficence was violated by researchers when the subjects were lied to, and enticed, or enticed in, with cheap incentives, including free hot meals, bus rides, and placebos as free treatment, with the objective of attaining their consent to participate in the experiment. Lastly, the Principle of Justice was infringed on when researchers decided to purposely NOT treat the men for their disease which allowed a very curable disease to kill them for the purpose of observation. The study unashamedly undervalued and disrespected participants’ rights, placing them in danger. Even after Penicillin became available, participants were still denied treatment. Informed Consent is a critical ethical requirement in biomedical research efforts involving human subjects, and a central component to making research ethical. Under this principle, experts are obligated to ensure that subjects are given comprehensive information about any procedures involved in the study; in this case, the implications of an individual’s participation in specific medical procedures must be broken down and explained with terms easy for a non-professional to understand. This enables a person to give either informed consent or informed refusal. Ultimately, this project or one similar in nature could not be legally or publically conducted in today’s environment due to a firm adherence to ethical principles and respect for human rights. The extreme unethical and immoral nature of the study, as well as its violation of experimental human rights, are the reasons that strict legal implications have been put in place to protect participants in future experiments.
