In the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, there were numerous ethical concerns that were involved. For example, nonmaleficence and Beneficence, which entails the aspect of minimizing and avoiding patients harm were not honored, especially due to the fact that the researchers who were responsible for the continuation of this study instituted harm to both the study participants and their families who were taking care of them (Heintzelman, 2003). As the disease progressed, the health of the participants continued to deteriorate under the watch of the researchers. In addition, the researchers failed to discuss and disclose the transmission of the disease, as well as the preemptive measures of preventing healthy individuals from contracting the disease. In addition, the researchers in this study violated the principle of responsibility and fidelity, which entails the aspect of building trust between the health professional and the patient. Precisely, the researchers hired Eunice Rivers, an African American nurse as a deception tactic rather than on establishing trust issues with the patients (Mahoney, Arnold " Harris, 1943). Moreover, the researchers violated justice and integrity ethical principles which are aimed at avoiding misrepresentation, upholding honesty, as well as enhancing access to health services. This is mostly due to the fact that the researchers failed to disclose lifesaving treatments for syphilis to the participants. Consecutively, the researchers prevented health professionals from conducting medical screening to the participants.
The concerns that the modern day institutional review board have on the Tuskegee experiment
The modern day IRB would try to evaluate the expected benefits of the study. Precisely, the IRB would have assessed whether the expected benefits of the study outweigh the risks, especially due to the fact that the study involves human subjects as the participants. The study would have been terminated if the trial shows human subjects will be adversely affected (Katz " Warren, 2011). In addition, the IRB would have evaluated whether human rights would be violated by the study or not. Moreover, the IRB would evaluate whether consent was given or not.
What do we learn about volunteers vs non volunteers from this experiment
In every research study, the major problem entails recruiting volunteers especially due to the fact that most individuals tend to have a negative perception concerning researchers. This was the same problem for the Tuskegee study. Actually, in this study, there were six hundred volunteers, and this included the 201 participants who were healthy, and 399 who had already tested positive for syphilis. From the study, it was unfair for the researchers to use the 201 participants who were healthy to participant in a study that that had no therapeutic purpose. But their decision of accepting may have been influenced by deception from the researchers. From this study, it is necessary for researchers to be embracing the aspect of evaluating the benefit of the study to the volunteers. On the other hand, it is unethical for the researchers to include non-volunteers without seeking for their willingness to participate.
How does the IRB address this?
The IRB would take punitive measures against the researchers who deceive individuals in order to participate in a given study (Bankert " Amdur, 2006). Every study participant is required to be give his or her consent without being coaxed to participant, and if he or she declines, the researcher should honor the decision immediately.
References
Heintzelman C., (2003). The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and Its Implications for the 21st Century. Retrieved from, http://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics-articles/The_Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study_and_Its_Implications_for_the_21st_Century/
Mahoney JF, Arnold RC, Harris AD (1943)., Penicillin Treatment of Early Syphilis: A Preliminary Report. Venereal Dis Inf 24: 355-357.
Katz, R. V., " Warren, R. C. (2011). The search for the legacy of the USPHS syphilis study at Tuskegee. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books.
Bankert, E. A., " Amdur, R. J. (2006). Institutional review board: Management and function. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.
