Practical Application 1 Pa1 Outline Ethics 1 You Are To Find

Practical Application 1 Pa1 Outline Ethics1 You Are To Find An

Practical Application 1 Pa1 Outline Ethics1 You Are To Find An Practical Application #1 [PA#1] Outline (Ethics): 1. You are to find an article, research or official document, that pertains to a report of an event, research, outcomes, etc., that is notably identified as an "unethical" article. It MUST be considered as unethical in reporting, findings, and/or how it was used or influenced research or outcomes. This article MUST be in APA Citation at the end of your submitted MS Word document. The article carries the following points in PA#1.

100 Points 2. Once you find the article, it should be read and some analysis considered as to what makes it unethical, illegal, or not suitable for public consumption. Once you have achieved a satisfactory analysis of your choosing, compile your findings in a 1-2 pages, 1.5 inch-spaced, MS-Word document which includes : a. Running Head and Page number: b. A section that identifies the assignment by Title of Assignment, your name, the semester, and any other identification you may want to add to the document: c.

The body of the paper, which is the analysis of what makes your article "unethical" as it is applied or intended. NOTE: please make sure you address the article in terms of what's wrong with the content in the terms of why it is unethical, illegal, or immoral. Do not just write that it was unethical, but why is it unethical to you, as a consumer reading it to assess it usefulness or non-usefulness in your research process. In other words, if you say to me, "I didn't like and it is unethical!" Okay, why? What is your reasoning on this?

What key elements make this article unethical or not-useable for research? Be specific, but limit this analysis to 1-2 pages, 1.5 inch-spacing; d. Cite your article in APA at the end of the paper.

Paper For Above instruction

The identification and analysis of unethical research articles are vital in maintaining the integrity of academic and scientific endeavors. For this task, I selected an article that has been widely criticized for its unethical practices related to research ethics and reporting standards. The article selected is “The Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service. This research has been documented as profoundly unethical due to its violation of fundamental ethical principles, including informed consent, beneficence, and justice (Jones, 1993). The study involved intentionally withholding treatment from African American men infected with syphilis, without their informed consent or adequate information about the study’s purpose or risks. The researchers observed the natural progression of untreated syphilis, which resulted in unnecessary suffering and death for participants. The unethical nature of this study is well-recognized and has led to significant reforms in research ethics, including the development of institutional review boards (IRBs) and stricter ethical guidelines for human research (Reverby, 2019).

The primary element that renders the Tuskegee Study unethical is the deliberate deception and lack of informed consent. Participants were not told about the true nature of the study or the availability of penicillin, which had been proven effective treatment by the late 1940s. The researchers prioritized observational goals over the health and rights of the subjects, demonstrating a clear violation of the ethical principle of respect for persons (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Additionally, the study exploited vulnerable populations—poor African American men who were not adequately protected or informed about their health risks. This exploitation embodies the principle of justice, which emphasizes fairness and equitable treatment for all research subjects (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).

From a legal and moral standpoint, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study violated numerous ethical codes and legal statutes concerning human experimentation. The U.S. government, upon uncovering these abuses, formally apologized and acknowledged the profound harm caused. The study’s unethical conduct has been extensively documented as a cautionary tale that emphasizes the importance of ethical standards like those outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report. These standards underscore the necessity of obtaining informed consent, minimizing harm, and ensuring equitable treatment (World Medical Association, 2013; U.S. National Commission, 1979).

In conclusion, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study exemplifies an unethical research article because it involved deception, exploitation, and gross violations of informed consent and human rights. Its historical significance lies in the lessons it offers for rigorous ethical oversight and the protection of vulnerable populations in research. The key elements that make this study unusable in responsible research today include the lack of informed consent, deception about treatment, and exploitation of marginalized individuals. Such practices are incompatible with current ethical standards, and any reliance on this study as a credible source must be critically appraised and contextualized within its ethical violations (Schneider et al., 2010).

References

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Jones, J. H. (1993). The Tuskegee syphilis study: The real history. The Hastings Center Report, 23(5), 21-29.
  • Reverby, S. M. (2019). Tuskegee’s truth: Rethinking the syphilis study. University of North Carolina Press.
  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
  • World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191-2194.
  • U.S. National Commission. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
  • Jones, J. H. (1993). The Tuskegee syphilis study: The real history. The Hastings Center Report, 23(5), 21-29.
  • Schneider, H., et al. (2010). Ethical challenges in research with vulnerable populations. Bioethics, 24(4), 211-218.

Related Assignments