The film, Miss Evers’ Boys was about an inhumane study of African American men suffering from syphilis. The film evolved around Eunice Evers, a nurse in a local Tuskegee hospital and her statement about the “Tuskegee study”. Dr. Brodus, the head doctor of the local Tuskegee hospital along with Nurse Evers were given fund to treat men with syphilis or what they called “bad blood” (Benedetti, Fishburne, Kavanagh, Konwiser & Sargent, 1997). These men were not very educated, and their health literacy were very low, so Nurse Evers had to use words that they could understand. After a while, the fund for the treatment diminished and they were not able to continue treating these men. A new option was given to them, to receive funds for the treatment
…show more content…
Beneficence is to do no harm to the patient and to ensure patient’s safety (Finkelman & Kenner, 2016). The film did not portray beneficence, because for not treating the patient they are implicating harm to them. In addition, the testing that was done during the study also added harm, risk and pain to the participants. The second ethical principles that was not met in the film is justice. Justice “is about treating people fairly” (Finkelman & Kenner, 2016, p. 175). Although, there was a study that was done on white men with syphilis, it was conducted during the time that the treatment was not available; unlike the study that was done with African American men. Another ethical principle is veracity, which means to tell the truth and to be honest (Finkelman & Kenner, 2016). Nurse Evers was put in a bad situation, where she had no choice but to lie and care for these men despite her stand against the study. The men in the film trusted Nurse Evers, they believed that they are being treated and that procedures that were done to them were part of their treatment. Furthermore, the film also violated another requirement by the IRB, which is the respect for person (Criteria for IRB Approval, 2013). The medical personnel in the film failed to give informed consents to the patients, they were not aware of the study and the details of the study. Moreover, they did not maintain a privacy and confidentiality of patients and data involving the study. An example, was when one of the men went to another hospital to get penicillin; the nurse stated that she could not give him penicillin because his name was listed under the study. In the other hand, one can argue that because this event happened in 1932 that privacy and confidentiality were not as important as they are
Beneficence is to do no harm to the patient and to ensure patient’s safety (Finkelman & Kenner, 2016). The film did not portray beneficence, because for not treating the patient they are implicating harm to them. In addition, the testing that was done during the study also added harm, risk and pain to the participants. The second ethical principles that was not met in the film is justice. Justice “is about treating people fairly” (Finkelman & Kenner, 2016, p. 175). Although, there was a study that was done on white men with syphilis, it was conducted during the time that the treatment was not available; unlike the study that was done with African American men. Another ethical principle is veracity, which means to tell the truth and to be honest (Finkelman & Kenner, 2016). Nurse Evers was put in a bad situation, where she had no choice but to lie and care for these men despite her stand against the study. The men in the film trusted Nurse Evers, they believed that they are being treated and that procedures that were done to them were part of their treatment. Furthermore, the film also violated another requirement by the IRB, which is the respect for person (Criteria for IRB Approval, 2013). The medical personnel in the film failed to give informed consents to the patients, they were not aware of the study and the details of the study. Moreover, they did not maintain a privacy and confidentiality of patients and data involving the study. An example, was when one of the men went to another hospital to get penicillin; the nurse stated that she could not give him penicillin because his name was listed under the study. In the other hand, one can argue that because this event happened in 1932 that privacy and confidentiality were not as important as they are