Essay Example on Unethical Experiments: Death & Suffering from Tuskegee & Milgram's Studies

Introduction

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Milgram's Obedience Study are two of the primary unethical researches where harmful practices were used. The corrupt practices in the experiments led to the death and suffering of most of the participants, and only then was the necessary authority able to create ethical guidelines that were to be used internationally in any research that was to be performed on people. If I had been the lead researcher during both of these experiments, I would have incorporated different clinical research and ethics to ensure that the risks that the participants faced were minimized, and little to no deaths occurred.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Tuskegee Syphilis Study

This study was performed by the United States public health to help determine the way that untreated syphilis in black males was spread. Four hundred men were used in the study, and they were all syphilitic as well as 200 men that were not infected (PPIRCPSC, 2013). Many mistakes were realized in the study where even after the men readily helped to research about syphilis. They did not receive any therapy when penicillin was discovered to be an effective treatment for the disease. By the time the experiment was halted, only 74 of the participants were still alive. All others had died from infections of syphilis (PPIRCPSC, 2013).

To prevent a repeat of the same mistakes that happened in the Tuskegee Study, a change in the practices of research would be done. All persons taking part in the study would have to do so intentionally with no forced experiments by the government or the research department (Perlman & Kline, 2004). The participants would have to be funded by the Department of Health or that of Education to ensure that the welfare of the infected people is maintained.

The ethical practice that the infected participants would be assured of is that no harm would befall them in the experiments. Their privacy would be maintained, and there would be no shaming of the participants based on their race, considering the high racism rates that existed at that time (Perlman & Kline, 2004). The participants would be assured that after a treatment for syphilis was found with the efforts of their contributions. They would be treated for free. All participants whose health conditions seemed to deteriorate in the time they took part in the research would be respected and allowed to leave when they voluntarily showed interest in doing so.

The participants would have the right to choose what they allowed to happen to them and what they disagreed with. They possess the right to know the risks that they are putting themselves in when taking part in the research as well as the benefits that they are likely to realize as soon as the research bears favorable fruits, and treatment for syphilis is found (Perlman & Kline, 2004). The risks, however, would be reduced to the minimal, and the researchers would have the task first to determine whether using human subjects was dangerous before asking them to volunteer for the study.

The participants would also be chosen based on their choice and determination to find treatment rather than their vulnerability. The research would be performed in such a way that the sick was not taken advantage of and continually used for different research purposes with no positive outcomes for them (Perlman & Kline, 2004). Given that the participants were desperate for a treatment that would eliminate the disease they had, the researchers were bound to take advantage of them. However, the new study would ensure that they were protected against exploitation, where only the administration was expected to benefit from the results achieved.

The research would have benefited the society at large with considerations of how unethical it was to endanger the lives of the participants and later charge them for treatment or ignore them, which would lead to their death (Code, 1949). Any participants who feel that they should end their participation in the research before it ends would have the right to do so without intimidation or threats that would force them to stay.

Milgram's Obedience Study

In the original experiment, Milgram engaged participants who thought that it was a task of learning that was to investigate how punishment using electric shocks affected different forms of knowledge. Milgram's experiment grew to become subjects of methodological and moral critiques in the past (Livewordcanada, 2011). The tests that were conducted in Milgram's ways caused severe stress levels to the participants. The experiment also demonstrated that human beings are products of different cultural moments that govern them, and they have a tendency to follow destructive obedience.

Milgram's experiment faces several replications due to ethical and legal constraints on the subjects. These constraints would have made me approach the study differently if I was the lead researcher. Items should be willing to extend beyond the 150 volts to study their compliance, but I would not have subjected them to the 450 volts against their will because that is not a test of obedience. Instead, it is a form of torture (Livewordcanada, 2011). Many people who go beyond the 150 volts do not show willingness; instead, it is a sign of pain that the subjects face when they are forced to undergo the process (Livewordcanada, 2011). This torture and suffering that the questions face is a violation of ethics and a representation of dark times elicited by Milgram's processes.

If I were the lead researcher, I would have ensured that the participants were protected from these violations by making them choose the limit they felt they were capable of reaching. Unlike Milgram's experiment, the participants' consent would have been respected. When they thought that they needed to withdraw from the research, they would have been allowed to without any threats or active participation (Ryan, Brady, Cooke, Height, Jonsen & King et al., 1979). The ethical measures required to ensure the participants' consent to assure them that they will be free from any harm that may arise as the experiment progresses. No research will be conducted in cases where there is a reason to believe that death or injury to the participants may occur.

Ethical guidelines to be followed include humanitarian beliefs of how a participant of any experiment should be respected for a specific problem to be dealt with by the research being undertaken by the project. The participants should be assured of their privacy and respect for their decisions, especially when they feel that they need to withdraw from the plan (Ryan et al., 1979). Another ethical guideline that will help the participants feel as if their decisions to assist in the study are respected is the use of good faith and high levels of skills in dealing with all processes to avoid possibilities of injuries or death. The participants who voluntarily show an interest in taking part in the experiment to create different results must be assured that all processes and activities conducted on them are done by people who are qualified scientifically.

Conclusion

Community partners have knowledge concerning communities where they live and work and are expected to approach problems differently. The risks of the process of the research in the participants create a lot of benefits where the benefits are more when the research risks are more significant. Due to Milgram's experiments trying to force the participants to portray obedience, many scientists argued that the process created a lot of anxiety for a high percentage of participants. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study misused many of the accomplices leading to their deaths. The new approach would have reduced these adverse effects that were realized in both experiments and ensured that all participants received equal benefits at the end of the study.

References

Code, N. (1949). The Nuremberg Code. Trials War Crim Nuremberg Mil Trib Control Counc Law, 10, 181-2. Retrieved 21 January 2020, from https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf

Livewordcanada. (2011). Milgram Obedience Study. Retrieved 21 January 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlI-_4GZQ

Perlman, D., & Kline, G. S. (2004). Ethics in clinical research: A history of human subject protections and practical implementation of ethical standards. SoCRA Source, 37, 41. Retrieved 21 January 2020, from http://materiais.dbio.uevora.pt/MA/Modulo2/Artigos/SoCRA-Perlman.pdf

PPIRCPSC. (2013). Research Ethics 101 Part 1.4 Tuskegee Study. Retrieved 21 January 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQOD8KIfBu0

Ryan, K., Brady, J., Cooke, R., Height, D., Jonsen, A., & King, P. et al. (1979). The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved 21 January 2020, from https://globalhealthtrainingcentre.tghn.org/site_media/media/medialibrary/2011/04/Belmont_Report_1979.pdf