Running head: THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Erin Buell
Concordia University
Health Policy and Management
MPH 525
Hollie Pavlica
February 22, 2015
1
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
2
The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
1. List at least three examples of unethical decisions made by the researchers
conducting the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.
There were many blatant examples of unethical treatment throughout the 40 year
span of the Tuskegee experiment. One example is that the decision makers did not give the
men truthful information about the blood tests, which was paternalistic in nature and did not
allow complete autonomy in the decision making of the men to be in the program. They
were told that the blood samples were simply a test for “bad blood,” which was a general
term of the day that included common ailments such as fatigue, and anemia, as well as
syphilis (Tuskegee University, n.d.). In all codes of ethics, the foundation of truth-telling is
emphasized as a component of respect for a person (Burke & Friedman, 2011).
The experiment also breached the ethical component of beneficence. The principle
of beneficence is the treatment of people with actions of kindness and charity. In terms of
public health practice, beneficence means that the health professional has a positive duty to
the public and that they will do all that is possible for the people served (Burke & Friedman,
2011). The experiment was conducted without consideration of the health of the men who
tested positive for syphilis, did not work to prevent the spread of the disease, and did not
provide treatment even when penicillin was accepted as effective medical intervention in
1945 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], n.d.). In fact, in the 27 years
between the introduction of penicillin as a treatment and the end of the experiment, the
participants were neither informed of their condition nor provided the medication.
Respect for persons in ethical practice involves the respect for individual autonomy. This
ethical backbone supports that one person will treat another in a way that allows them to be
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
3
self-governing (Burke & Friedman, 2011). In order to be able to be self-governing, an
individual must not be coerced, misinformed, or otherwise constrained (Burke & Friedman,
2011). This includes the consideration of many factors that may present interference of a
person being able to make an informed decision. In the case of the Tuskegee experiment,
many of the men were not able to read. Their illiteracy was not addressed to help the men
and their families understand the process. A flagrant example of the experiment not
allowing for proper autonomy is epitomized in comments from Dr. Sidney Olansky, the
director of the experiment from 1950-1957. Olansky stated that “The fact that they were
illiterate was helpful too, because they couldn’t read the newspapers. If they were not, as
things moved on they might have been reading newspapers and seen what was going on.”
Olansky further admitted that it was not clear that the men understood what they were told,
or if they were told the truth in efforts to gain their participation (Thomas, 2000, para. 14).
2. List three ways you would have changed the way this study was run and why?
To consider how a professional in public health may have changed the way the study was
run, it is important to look at the different points in history in which any specific decisions
were made. To consider how I might have made a difference in the conduction and outcome
of the study, I would have utilized the information, key events, and influential figures of the
day. In 1930 when the Tuskegee study began, societal and cultural norms, effects of the
Great Depression, medical knowledge, and the exploration of ethics and public health
affected the decisions that were made to conduct the experiment. Prior to the onset of the
experiment, efforts to improve Black economic development were initiated by Booker T.
Washington and his supporters, including Julius Rosenwald (CDC, n.d.). By the mid
1920’s, the identification of syphilis as an impediment to health was considered, and efforts
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
4
in treatment were funded and explored (CDC, n.d.). However, when funding cuts during the
onset of the Depression threatened the continuation of study of the disease, a decision was
made to follow the men that were left untreated. The hope was that it could be proven that
funding was indeed necessary for treatment programs (CDC, n.d.). At the very onset of the
Tuskegee syphilis trials, however, honesty should have been integral to the implementation
and to the offerings among the men involved. Cultural inequities between Blacks and
Whites were vast at that time in history, and undoubtedly ignorance, norms, and prejudice
would have had an effect on communication tactics. In the minds of many, the inequity of
the races may have justified paternalistic practices. However, such prominent figures as
Eleanor Roosevelt, who was involved in the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (Stanford University, n.d.), could have given strength to any White leader to
voice the truth to the Black men that were asked to participate in the study. These men and
their families should have been told that the study was regarding syphilis, and whether or
not they had the disease. Men were also led to believe that spinal tests were treatments,
when in fact they were diagnostic tools for the study (Thomas, 2000). This likely would
have made it more difficult for men to step forward to participate, but it would have avoided
a tremendous ethical breach.
The purpose of the experiment was the specific effort to study the natural
progression of untreated syphilis, and how the effects of syphilis might differ between
Blacks and Whites. A total of 600 men were chosen for the study. Most were impoverished,
uneducated sharecroppers. Of the men chosen, 201 did not have syphilis. The remaining 399
subjects were in the second stage of the disease, and while they did not know what their
illness was, they were promised medical care, food, and other benefits in exchange for
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
5
participation (Thomas, 2000). What ensued was the unethical positioning of the health of
these men, their sexual function, and the health of their intimate partners against the
objectifying of human beings for the purpose of medical experimentation. A more ethical
approach would have been to offer clinical trials for treatment, and provide education to
both White and Black populations that were affected with the disease and closely monitor
the results. This would have lessened the racial bias that affected the study, and would have
established better data in which to learn of the progression, spread, and cure of the disease.
Unfortunately, in the early years of the study, the common treatment involved mercury and
bismuth, which did not prove effective in curing the disease, and was toxic in nature (CDC,
n.d.). Therefore, while this approach may have been more ethically sound, history would
have undoubtedly carried forward a message of poor outcome.
There were several points in the forty-year study in which interventions should have been
put into place to stop the experiment. The Henderson Act of 1943 required testing and
treatment for venereal disease, but the Tuskegee study continued. In 1945, penicillin was
validated as appropriate and effective treatment, but the participants of the study were not
informed or treated. During the draft for World War II, 250 of the infected men were given
exemptions by Public Health Service to receive treatment so that they could remain in the
study (Information Please, n.d.). These were missed opportunities for health workers and
others involved in the study to inform the participants, become whistle blowers, provide
treatment, and prevent the spread of disease.
3. Name five of the essential elements of informed consent and discuss whether any
of those were met with the Tuskegee Syphilis Study participants?
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
6
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) outlines specific
points regarding essential elements of informed consent. Among this list of elements are the
specifications that the subjects be informed that the study involves research, be informed of
the purposes of the research, be given a description of any foreseeable risks or discomforts to
the subjects, be provided the expected duration of the subject’s participation, and be given a
disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that may be
of advantage to the subject (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,[DHHS]
n.d.[a]).
As the subjects were mostly unable to read, they were provided information about the study
through verbal communication. It is important to note that the subjects were not told that they
were part of a study or any research project, but only that they were being given treatment.
There appears to be no specific evidence that shows that the subjects comprehended what
they were told, or that there was consistency of information given to different groups and
individuals recruited for the study. At a very minimum, because the subjects were offered
burial costs, it might be argued that the element of informed consent regarding the duration
of the experiment was established if the intent of that offering was that the study was
expected to continue until death of the subject.
4. Are there any scenarios where informed consent is not needed? If so, describe
three of them.
Informed consent is not always appropriate or necessary. This would include the
event of an emergency, in which there is not time or ability to communicate process of care
in a timely manner with which to administer it (Burke & Friedman, 2011). The Institutional
Review Board (IRB) of DHHS can determine whether a project can waive some or all of the
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
7
elements of informed consent (DHHS, n.d. [a]). Examples might include projects that the
IRB finds to be of benefit to the public and carries minimal or no risk to the subjects, or
where the lack of informed consent will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the
subjects (DHHS, n.d.). The Tuskegee study has been accused of consideration of the
subjects to be no more than that of laboratory animals (Thomas, 2000). If that was the
general attitude of the Public Health Services of the day, it is likely that informed consent
was not a consideration among many.
5. What are the three core principles of the Belmont Report?
The Belmont Report was created by the National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1978 and has been adopted as a
statement, rather than as a list of specific recommendations of legislative action, for the
treatment of subjects in biomedical and behavioral research (DHHS, n.d.[b]). The three core
ethical principles of this report are respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Respect for
persons includes the requirement to acknowledge a person’s autonomy and to protect those
who have diminished autonomy. Beneficent actions include those that maximize benefit
while minimizing harm and that only utilize humans in research when there is likelihood of
benefit. The principle of justice is the requirement to treat people fairly and equitably, and
that subjects are not used for the purpose of research through any systematic selection
process based on a person’s or group’s easy availability or manipulability, or compromised
position that are not specific to the problem being studied (Bryn Mawr College, n.d.).
6. What does individual autonomy mean and who does it specifically protect? Was
the principle applied appropriately in the Tuskegee study?
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
Individual autonomy protects individual freedom through respect of a person’s
judgment. Autonomy reflects the capabilities of a person to make choices based on personal
goals and opinions, unless those choices are deemed to be detrimental to another. In many
cases, however, an individual is not capable of the self-determination that supports
autonomy. The ability to understand the choices are conditional upon such things as age and
maturity, intelligence, and language, as well as deficiencies caused by such elements as
mental illness or disability. In the case of the Tuskagee project, autonomy was prevented
from several perspectives. The men in the study were prompted to participate primarily
through promises of medical care, food, transportation to medical facilities, and cost
coverage for burial expenses, but not from decisions of the full extent of self-determination.
In addition, these men were not able to read. Had they been given contracts, written
information, or newspapers with updates on the treatment of syphilis, they would not have
been able to make decisions based upon the information. Autonomy as a basis of decision
making cannot be made if the information is not given or is not understood (Burke &
Friedman, 2011).
7. Define beneficence. Was this principle adhered to in the Tuskegee study?
Explain your answer.
Beneficence refers to the specification that potential benefits for individuals and to
society be maximized in the effort that potential harms can be minimized (Coughlin, 2008).
The moral obligation of beneficence includes that one cannot readily treat another with
kindness and charity if goodness does not outweigh risk. However, if an action is not
considered morally just to the individual, the greater good is not justified (Burke & Friedman,
2011). In the Tuskegee study, we should argue that the individual good was sacrificed for an
interpretation of the greater good, which does not satisfy the rules of beneficence. Many individuals
8
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
9
were subjected to spinal injections, were denied diagnosis and treatment, and unintentionally exposed
their intimate partners to a preventable disease. The conductors of the study held the belief that this
was in an the effort to study the effects of syphilis in the Black population, but the risks do not
outweigh the benefits.
8. What does respect for persons mean and how is it applied in research? Was it
applied in the Tuskegee study? Explain your answer.
Respect for persons might be looked at as the umbrella over autonomy, beneficence,
non-maleficence, and justice (Coughlin, 2008). Professional public health practices must
consider the application of respect for persons in every professional ethics matter in that
health professionals are in the position to identify, to contribute to, and to clarify the
fundamental ethical aspects of the work done in epidemiology and biomedical research
(Coughlin, 2008). Respect was largely ignored in the Tuskegee project. Autonomy and
beneficence were not sufficiently considered throughout the 40 year project and it is clear
that respect for persons was not adequately considered.
9. What is the Nuremberg Code? What was it inspired by? What are the core
elements in it?
The Nuremberg Code was developed in 1947 in the aftermath of Nazi research on
uninformed prisoners in concentration camps. Human participants had unwittingly been
victims of medical experiments that led to many permanent disabilities or death.
Subsequently, twenty-three physicians and administrators were charged for willing
participation in war crimes against humanity (Claremont Graduate University, 2015). As a
result of these heinous acts, the ethical principle of informed consent became known as teh
Nuremberg Code. The Nuremberg Code specified that any person involved as a human
subject for research or experimentation should have legal capacity to give consent, and
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
10
should be able to exercise free power of choice without force, fraud, fear, deceit, coercion, or
duress (Claremont Graduate University, 2015). Furthermore, the subject should be able to
comprehend the elements of the matter and research process to the extent that an informed
decision can be made (DHHS, n.d.[c]). Core elements of the Nuremberg Code include that it
is the responsibility as well as the duty of the individual or entity who initiates, directs, or
engages in the experiment to ascertain the quality of the consent (DHHS, n.d.[c]). In
addition, any experiment utilizing human subjects must be for the promotion of good, and
must be shown to not be attainable through any other course of study, nor to be random or
unnecessary (DHHS, n.d.[c]).
10.
Name what went right in the Tuskegee study. Which aspects of it could be
replicated today, following the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki,
and the Belmont Report?
It is difficult to name what may have gone right in the Tuskegee study. However, it is
worth remembering that there were the physicians, considered liberal in the era, that were
supportive of the efforts to study syphilis and other venereal diseases, and had intentions to
understand how to prevent and eradicate the disease in the early part of the twentieth century.
Through the course of history we learn from our mistakes and from those who speak up
about such things as ethical treatment. The studies that have occurred in the aftermath of
abhorrent treatments as happened in Nuremberg, Helsinki, and Macon County, have shaped
codes of ethics across decades. However, we should heed warning that not all human beings
are above taking advantage of those with lesser capabilities to be autonomous, and that there
are those who may utilize paternalism to the degree of unfairness, maleficence, and injustice,
even when law provides protection against such action. Furthermore, it is important to
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
11
recognize that while the Nuremberg Code was created to create ethical guidelines for the
utilization of humans in bio-research, and to protect autonomy and respect of persons, it
came into existence 25 years before the Tuskegee project was finally forced to end.
Cultivating and promoting ethical conduct is an ongoing process that will change with social,
cultural, economic, and medical progressions through time. The lessons learned from poor
and unethical treatment of humans and mistakes in judgment, will continue to be made
through ignorance and blind obedience, social and leadership pressures or other influences.
The study and practice of ethics needs to stay current with education, advocacy, and
perseverance.
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
12
References
Bryn Mawr College. (n.d.). The principles of the Belmont Report. In Ethics of fieldwork.
Retrieved from http://www.brynmawr.edu/ceo/students/ethics/belmontreport.html
Burke, R., & Friedman, L. (2011). Essentials of management and leadership in public health.
Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). The Tuskegee timeline. In U.S. public health
service syphilis study at Tuskegee. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm
Claremont Graduate University. (2015). History of ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1722.asp
Coughlin, S. (2008). How many principles for public health ethics? In U.S. National Library of
Medicine National Institutes of Health. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2174/1874944500801010008
Information Please. (n.d.). The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Retrieved from
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
Stanford University. (n.d.). Roosevelt, (Anna) Eleanor (1884-1962). Retrieved from http://mlkkpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_roosevelt_anna_eleanor_1
884_1962/
Thomas, S. (2000, January/February). The legacy of Tuskegee. AIDS and African-Americans. In
The Body; The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource. Retrieved from
http://www.thebody.com/content/art30946.html
Tuskegee University. (n.d.). About the USPHS syphilis study. Retrieved from
http://www.tuskegee.edu/about_us/centers_of_excellence/bioethics_center/about_the_usp
hs_syphilis_study.aspx
THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS EXPERIMENT
13
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services[DHHS]. (n.d.[a]). Informed consent checklist basic and additional elements. In Office for human research protections. Retrieved from
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/consentckls.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services[DHHS]. (n.d.[b]). Office of the Secretary
ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subject of research. The
National Commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral
research. April 18, 1979.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services[DHHS]. (n.d.[c]). The Nuremberg Code.
Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html