Ethics in research
First Peer Post

Autonomy, the ethical principle to respect a person’s independence to make decisions is one of the three main ethical principles upheld in the field of research (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017). The Tuskegee Syphilis study had violated this principle.

Between the years 1932 to 1972, the U.S. Health Service Syphilis Study was conducted in Macon County, Alabama. This study was conducted to learn more and justify the treatment of syphilis for blacks (CDC, 2020). 600 black men were coerced into the experiment; they are promised hot meals, free medical exams, and burial compensation (Voices of the Civil Rights Movement, 2017). The researchers took advantage of the group’s illiteracy, caused by their low-socioeconomic status and impoverished lives as farmers. This action is a violation of two of the three main foundations of autonomy/respect for person in research: information and comprehension (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017). The subjects’ information about the disease and the research being conducted is lacking due to their lack of opportunity for a higher education, which also negatively affects their comprehension of their situation. Because of these factors, they are unable to give informed consent to participate in this unethical research.

The discovery of this unethical study has led to changes in research, prioritizing human condition and weighing benefits over the risk of hurting the subject, and of course, letting the subject provide informed consent by making sure they are well-informed to make such decision. A lot of ethical boundaries can be crossed when it comes to research, but in my opinion, autonomy, respecting a subject as a person, is still the most important part of a research study. A research may be for a greater good, but coercion of unsuspecting people into a study that can harm them can very well be the worst thing any researchers can do.

Please reply to this peer post either answering them or creating new ideas. Not more than half a page.

Second Peer Post

What aspect of this study was most impactful to you? Why?

The foundational moral imperative of doing right among medical researchers emerges as the most aspect with significant impact. This imperative doing of right is primarily beneficence in which, according to the Belmont Report video, the concept is that researcher-participant relationship is an obligation in any medical-based research (Parasidis et al., 2019). A participant is a critical element in the research, and researchers must comply with this research ethic principle to display a firm connotation of doing good to human subjects, moral obligation. An invocation of a wide array of moral obligation becomes necessary.

The moral imperative of doing right by research professionals in honoring and upholding the interests and well-being of human subjects involved in the study is an approach of showing respect for all subjects. It is critical to obtain a participant’s consent before he or she can participate in research. The reason is that human subjects have their rights, and a researcher should not force them to get involved in the study. Instead, a practice of respect for all participants is a significant role among researchers (Dougherty, 2020). The informed consent will create an awareness regarding the possible dangers that a participant may face if he or she decides to be used as a human subject in the research. Under the perspective of beneficence, a researcher should inform a participant about such threats if he ought to do good for the research human subjects. Contrary to informed consent, it means doing a bad thing for participants.

How Belmont Report Relates with The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

The Tuskegee Syphilis study reflects the critical concept of beneficence principle highlighted by Belmont Report. A study identifies damages caused to participants of syphilis medical research as a result of medical research professionals not complying to beneficence principle. According to Belmont reports, a researcher should first prioritize doing good for human subjects by not exposing them to risks. In the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the researchers violated beneficence principle by not bothering to informed consent of African Americans used as human subjects for testing Syphilis (Barrett, 2019). The outcome of that research adversely affected the health of participants, whereby some died and other paralyzed, an issue that forced the federal government to compensate survivors.

Please reply to this peer post either answering them or creating new ideas. Not more than half a page.