The Tuskegee governmental study of poor African American males breached many moral and ethical standards that were later established and outlined in the 1974 Belmont Report.
The first being, “Beneficence”, according to the Belmont Report “Persons are treated in and ethical manner not only by respecting their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well being” pg.3. The fact that the government and the researchers (doctors) knew that not giving the men treatment for Syphilis would end in many deaths and continued anyway violates the ethical standards held by doctors to protect their patients from harm. The study further impeded on the patients right to freedom of choice when they barred the patients from being able to seek medical treatment in the form of penicillin from other hospitals. The end of the film stated, “there were no known adverse effects that resulted from the treatment of penicillin”. This makes me wonder if the notion that penicillin would harm or kill those patients that were in the latent stage of the disease was just another lie to justify the study or did the doctors really believe the treatment was harmful? …show more content…
84. The study was in the 1940-50’s where monetary value was higher than it is presently, so the offer of a $50 stipend could be considered excessive coercion. I found it interesting that the reason for the stipend was so the men could die in a coffin instead of a feedbag this gave a foreshadowing of the results of the study ending in
The first being, “Beneficence”, according to the Belmont Report “Persons are treated in and ethical manner not only by respecting their decisions and protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well being” pg.3. The fact that the government and the researchers (doctors) knew that not giving the men treatment for Syphilis would end in many deaths and continued anyway violates the ethical standards held by doctors to protect their patients from harm. The study further impeded on the patients right to freedom of choice when they barred the patients from being able to seek medical treatment in the form of penicillin from other hospitals. The end of the film stated, “there were no known adverse effects that resulted from the treatment of penicillin”. This makes me wonder if the notion that penicillin would harm or kill those patients that were in the latent stage of the disease was just another lie to justify the study or did the doctors really believe the treatment was harmful? …show more content…
84. The study was in the 1940-50’s where monetary value was higher than it is presently, so the offer of a $50 stipend could be considered excessive coercion. I found it interesting that the reason for the stipend was so the men could die in a coffin instead of a feedbag this gave a foreshadowing of the results of the study ending in