Ethics Assignment: Miss Evers’ Boys And Ethical Issues

Ethics Assignment Miss Evers’ Boys And Ethical Issues In Researchstu

Ethics Assignment - Miss Evers’ Boys and Ethical Issues in Research Students will watch the movie “Miss Evers’ Boys” about a landmark government study carried out over several decades by the United States government and the outstanding ethical issues surrounding it. Students will also locate another example of a research study that violated ethical standards. The student will reflect upon these studies and respond to the rubric. Students may watch the movie with classmates, but the assignment should reflect each student’s individual thoughts and be in their own words. It is expected that the student will consult additional resources to more fully explore the questions in the ethics reflection assignment.

This assignment is written as a paper, not just a document with answers to the questions. It must be in APA format including cover page, paper, and reference page. There is not a minimum number of pages required, should be of sufficient length to thoughtfully address the questions in the assignment. See APA Format in the Additional Items and Policies section after the Course Calendar in this Syllabus. The paper will be submitted through Turnitin and should have a green score to reflect absence of plagiarism.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is one of the most infamous examples of unethical research in American history. Initiated in 1932 by the U.S. Public Health Service, its primary aim was to observe the natural progression of untreated syphilis in African American men in Tuskegee, Alabama. The study's intent was ostensibly to record the disease’s progression, but in reality, it enabled researchers to observe unnecessary suffering and death. The study was cloaked in deception, as participants were misled to believe they were receiving treatment when, in fact, no effective care was provided. The unethical foundation of this study has been a focal point in discussions about research ethics and the importance of protecting human subjects.

Origin and Intent of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study

The Tuskegee Study began in 1932, with the objective of observing the natural history of syphilis in African American males. The study initially involved 600 men—399 with syphilis and 201 controls without the disease. The researchers sought to understand how syphilis affected the body over time and to develop better treatment methods. However, the researchers deliberately withheld treatment, even after penicillin became the standard cure in the 1940s, in order to record the disease's full progression. The study was unethical from its inception, as the participants were not informed of the true purpose and were denied treatment, leading to avoidable suffering and deaths.

Population Characteristics in Tuskegee

The population of Tuskegee, Alabama, was unique in the context of the study because it mainly consisted of African American men, many of whom had limited access to healthcare and education. This demographic vulnerability made them particularly susceptible to exploitation, as they were often mistreated or used as subjects without fully understanding the risks involved. The socioeconomic and racial context contributed to the study's unethical nature, highlighting systemic disparities that facilitated exploitation of marginalized groups.

Participants' Selection and Researchers’ Choices

Dr. Douglas and Dr. Brodus likely chose Miss Evers and other local figures because they had established trust within the community. Miss Evers, a nurse, was seen as a sympathetic and trusted figure who could influence the men’s decisions. The selection of such individuals was strategic, as their roles could be leveraged to facilitate participation—although this also raised ethical concerns about coercion and manipulation. The researchers aimed to utilize familiar and trustworthy community members to increase participation, exploiting the social bonds and trust inherent in the community.

Methods Used by Miss Evers to Coerce or Convince Participation

Miss Evers employed several methods to persuade the men to participate. First, she used personal relationships and established trust, emphasizing that participation was for their health and community benefit. Second, she appealed to their sense of duty and patriotism, framing the study as patriotic service. Third, she leveraged her position as a nurse to lend credibility, implying that helping with the study would also help their health. Analyzing these approaches, some activities involved advocacy and building trust, but others risked coercion, especially when community members felt pressured by Miss Evers’ authority and their social relationships. The subtle manipulation of trust and authority blurred lines between genuine persuasion and coercion, raising significant ethical concerns.

Governmental Power and Ethical Violations

The United States government wielded considerable power by funding the study and controlling the dissemination of information. They maintained secrecy about the true purpose and withheld treatment, thereby perpetuating the study for decades. This demonstrates a clear abuse of power—mandating and perpetuating unethical practices under the guise of scientific research. The government’s influence ensured the study continued, despite clear ethical violations, such as lack of informed consent, deception, and withholding of effective treatment.

Factors Contributing to the Study’s Continuation

Several factors, including racial discrimination, economic disparity, and social hierarchy, contributed to the ongoing nature of the Tuskegee Study and Miss Evers’ participation. The racial dynamics meant that Black men’s health was undervalued, making exploitation easier and less likely to be scrutinized. Economic factors further stripped participants of the freedom to refuse participation, as they depended on the researchers’ decisions for healthcare or assistance. Miss Evers, caught between her ethical awareness and her role within the community, stayed engaged with the study, possibly rationalizing her actions to justify participation or out of a sense of obligation.

Personal Reflection on Miss Evers’ Role

Reflecting on Miss Evers' participation evokes complex feelings. While she was a compassionate caregiver, her involvement in deceitful practices and her continued participation in an unethical study compromise her moral integrity. It raises questions about the conflict between professional duty and ethical standards, especially in marginalized communities vulnerable to exploitation. Her role highlights the importance of ethical training and awareness among healthcare professionals to prevent similar ethical breaches.

Possible Actions and Ethical Considerations

In her position, I would have prioritized advocating for the participants’ rights by protesting the withholding of treatment or seeking intervention from ethical review boards. Education about the participants’ rights and transparency about the study’s purpose would have been essential. Ethically, I would have attempted to challenge the unethical practices, even at personal risk, to protect the dignity and health of the men involved. This approach aligns with principles of beneficence, justice, and respect for persons, which were sidelined in the original study.

Alternative Ethical Approaches

Employing community-based participatory research methods, with informed consent and transparent communication, would have been vital. Establishing external oversight by ethical review boards and ensuring the participants' understanding would have prevented exploitation. Engaging the community in decision-making and respecting their autonomy would have aligned the study more closely with contemporary ethical standards.

Additional Ethical Violations Study

An example of a research study that violated ethical standards is the Milgram obedience experiment conducted in the 1960s. Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a learner, believing they were causing harm. The study violated ethical principles chiefly through deception, lack of informed consent, and potential psychological harm. It raised concerns about the exploitation of emotional responses for research purposes without adequate safeguards. Although it contributed valuable insights into obedience, ethical standards at the time were not sufficiently enforced, leading to lasting debates over research ethics.

Comparison of Ethical Violations

Both the Tuskegee Study and Milgram’s experiment violated core ethical principles like respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. While Tuskegee involved deception and withholding treatment to sustain suffering, Milgram involved deception about the nature of the shocks and induced emotional distress. The key difference is that Tuskegee targeted a vulnerable racial group for long-term exploitation, whereas Milgram’s focus was on understanding obedience, with immediate psychological risks. Both studies highlight the importance of informed consent, risk minimization, and ethical oversight to protect human subjects from harm.

Modern Research Ethics Protections

Today, research ethics are governed by laws and practices such as the Belmont Report, which emphasizes respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) monitor and approve research proposals to ensure ethical standards are upheld. Informed consent procedures, confidentiality protections, and risk assessments serve as guardrails to prevent exploitation. Additionally, laws like the Common Rule enforce ethical conduct and protect participants’ rights, reflecting lessons learned from past unethical research, including the Tuskegee Study.

Conclusion

The legacy of unethical research like the Tuskegee Study underscores the critical importance of strict ethical standards and oversight in human subject research. While historical studies reveal egregious violations, current regulations, community engagement, and ethical review processes aim to uphold human dignity and prevent future misconduct. It remains essential for researchers to balance scientific inquiry with unwavering respect for participants’ rights to foster trust and integrity in research endeavors.

References

• Brody, H. (1990). The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The Real Dilemma. Journal of the National Medical Association, 82(6), 523-527.
• Gail, M. H. (2018). Historical perspectives on research ethics. Epidemiologic Reviews, 40(1), 28-36.
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
• Jones, J. H. (1993). Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Free Press.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
• National Research Act. (1974). Pub. L. No. 93-348, 88 Stat. 342. United States Congress.
• Resnik, D. B. (2015). Ethical considerations in research with vulnerable populations. American Journal of Bioethics, 15(1), 3-11.
• Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press.
• Street, R. L. (2017). Historical context of research ethics. American Journal of Public Health, 107(1), 20-25.
• Wichert, A. (2000). Protecting human subjects in research: Institutional Review Boards and the history of human experimentation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(6), 373-377.