Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Ethical Issues and Personal Statement

Ethics in research are portrayed as an individual’s guidance to morally perform appropriate behavior when researching and conducting a Tuskegee Syphilis study ethical issues essay paper. It also helps an individual to practice preventing harm among other individuals and avoiding bias within their work. In Chapter 14, ethical issue recognition enables a person to identify what specific actions in general cause such ethical problems. Furthermore, once identifying the numerous issues, the person can “understand different ethical perspectives/concepts” as mentioned in Chapter 14, where they can analyze and apply their comprehension in ethics to formulate new ideas and relate with others. Ethical self-awareness involves the individual to become fully conscious of their actions and to avoid temptations and make righteous decisions.

Whom Do I Identify as the Researcher, Participans and Stakeholders in the Study?

In the “Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” the head researcher who became in charge of the project was the American public health researcher, Dr. John Cutler. The participants in the “Tuskegee Syphilis Study” consisted of 600 men who were primarily sharecroppers and many of them claimed to have never visited a doctor before. The 399 men in the syphilitic group were initially recruited because they already had late latent syphilis. The 201 men in the control group did not have the disease. For the “Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” the stakeholders are the scientists and doctors, the African American men who were the victims of the study, along with their wives who contracted the infectious disease or even their children or grandchildren who were born with congenital syphilis. The stakeholders could potentially be any individual of African American decent, family members, friends, or even us as a scientific community.

Aspects of the Study That Can Be Considered as Unethical in Research

In the “Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” one aspect is that the scientists continued the study without treating any participants by withholding penicillin and information about it from the patients. This is because the researchers wanted to observe the individual dangers and fatal progression of the disease. After funding for treatment was lost, the study was continued without informing the men that they would never be treated. In addition, scientists prevented participants from accessing syphilis treatment programs available to other residents in the area. The third aspect is that the subjects were not well informed about the whole purpose of the research at the beginning of the study; neither were they informed of the inherent dangers of the study. The experiment was at the time seen as potentially beneficial for the humankind, but did not consider the harm caused to individuals and their families.

How Was Ethical Issues Arising From the Study Addressed Later On?

For the “Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” the government decided to change its research practices to prevent a repeat of the mistakes made in Tuskegee. Because of what happened in the study, studies now require informed consent, communication of diagnosis, and accurate reporting of test results. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including laypeople, are also established in scientific research groups and hospitals to review study protocols and protect patient interests, to ensure that participants are fully informed. In 1974, the National Research Act was signed into law, creating the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research External. The group identified basic principles of research conduct and suggested ways to ensure those principles were followed.

Conclusion

I would protect myself as the researcher, my participants, and any other stakeholders involved within the study by adhering to the code of conduct on ethical issues and professional and academic integrity. I want to ensure safety among others, along with myself, because harming others would be under my liability. I would also follow the guidelines given by the Institutional Review Boards to determine the appropriateness of my actions for the research study.