In modern day society, doing medical research on living human subjects is cruel and simply unheard of. Not only has new technology eliminated the need for it altogether, researchers have learned that it is inhumane. However, the world of medicine has not always been so progressive. People were frequently used for tests throughout history, and to make matters worse, were usually lied to about what was happening to them. Because of this, those who were used as test subjects exhibited symptoms of both physical and mental decay. The short story “Flowers for Algernon” and the film Miss Evers’ Boys help to illustrate the several ethical issues of using humans as test subjects and the negative impact this testing had on the well being of the subjects. …show more content…
Miss Evers’ Boys is a 1997 film directed by Joseph Sargent that tells the true story of the 1932 Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments (imdb.com). These experiments were conducted by the government on 412 men who had syphilis, and it involved giving them placebos to determine if black men had a similar reaction to the disease as white men. This continued for forty years and claimed the lives of 285 of the involved men. The film takes place in Alabama, and is told through the point of view of Eunice Evers, a nurse who is aware of what is happening to the patients, but remains involved to attempt to ease their pain. “Flowers for Algernon,” on the other hand, is a short story written by Daniel Keyes who eventually turned it into a full-length novel. It is told through the point of view of Charlie Gordon, a mentally retarded adult man who undergoes a surgery that is supposed to boost his intelligence after a recommendation from his teacher, Alice Kinnian. A rat named Algernon also receives the same procedure. Under the direction of the experimenters, Dr. Strauss and Professor Nemur, Charlie keeps a journal of progress reports which makes up the narrative of the story. Throughout the story, you can see the operation is working through Charlie’s improved grammar and overall better sense of understanding of his environment. He even discovers he is in love with Alice, and even pursues a brief romantic relationship. However, he feels his experimenters think he is just a lab animal, which marks the beginning of his downward spiral. Algernon begins to lose his intelligence, which sends Charlie into panic when he realizes the same will eventually happen to him. As his intelligence slips, he forgets that he is no longer a part of Alice’s class and attends one night, which upsets her. This causes him to admit himself into a nursing home, ending his progress reports with a request to leave flowers on Algernon’s grave. There are several ethical issues that surround human experimentation. One example is that in most, if not all, cases, the subjects were ill informed on what was actually happening to them. In “Flowers for Algernon,” it is not until the 11th progress report that Charlie fully realizes that the procedure was temporary, which is three months after the beginning of the experiment. The doctors knew that Charlie’s mental capacity was not large enough to comprehend this, which made it even easier for them to take advantage of him. In an early scene of Miss Evers’ Boys, Nurse Evers told the men that they would be receiving “back shots” when it was actually a spinal tap, an extremely painful procedure that involves inserting a needle into the spine to extract fluid, which could ultimately result in paralysis (Miss Evers’ Boys). Additionally, the men were told that penicillin would only worsen their condition, which was the exact opposite of the truth. One of the characters, Caleb Humphries, left the experiments and joined the army where he received penicillin shots and was cured of syphilis. Penicillin was proven effective, and the doctors chose to continue using mercury rubs and placebos as the primary form of long-term treatment for the men (Miss Evers’ Boys). If the men were aware that they were not actually receiving treatment, they most definitely would have withdrew from the program, and they could have had a real chance at life. The doctors tricked both Charlie Gordon and the 412 men into believing that they would eventually get what they desired—intelligence and treatment for syphilis, respectively. Human experimentation was frequently performed on minority groups. The men in Miss Evers’ Boys were all African American, and in 1932 (when the film takes place), their access healthcare was limited because they were extremely discriminated against. In fact, the film opens with the following piece of evidence: “In 1932, many people believed that the high mortality rate and incidence of disease among African-Americans was proof that they were ‘biologically inferior’ to whites” (Miss Evers’ Boys). This leads to another ethical issue of human experimentation—that minority groups were taken advantage of because the doctors knew these people had few opportunities to receive any form of help, and it was unlikely that they would decline treatment of any kind. In “Flowers for Algernon,” on the other hand, Charlie is a part of a minority group—those who suffer from mental retardation. It is a pretty well known fact that people who suffer from mental retardation are often viewed as “less-than” those who do not, which is not an accurate portrayal of these people, but shows that they are often disregarded by the rest of society. Due to the lack of research on mental retardation that existed in the 1960s, when “Flowers for Algernon” was written, these people were even more so snubbed than they are in present times. One of the most obvious ethical issues of human experimentation is that it has several extremely negative impacts on the mental and physical well being of the subjects involved.
This may be considered common sense after several decades, but at the time, the doctors and/or researchers were not aware that they were doing any harm—they simply thought they were doing the greater good for the fields of science and medicine. Human experimentation affects a person’s physical health most harshly. In Miss Evers’ Boys, the men get more and more ill as the film progresses. This is shown most prominently at 1:28:37 to 1:31:17, when Eunice is talking to one of the patients, Ben. He appears very ill, frequently coughs, and speaks in a raspy voice. He expresses that he feels “all wore-down, all the time”, and also mentions that he is going blind. Charlie Gordon’s physical health in “Flowers for Algernon” also declines. As he loses his intelligence, he remarks in the June 22nd progress report that he keeps “tripping over things, and it becomes increasingly difficult to type.” The mental health of those subjected to human experimentation also suffers. Towards the end of Miss Evers’ Boys, Eunice finds one of the men, Hodman, sitting by a fire and chanting. At 1:36:35, he then proceeds to drink turpentine in a desperate attempt cure his syphilis. Obviously, no person in his or her right state of mind would drink a poisonous substance. Both syphilis itself and receiving treatment but not feeling better probably played a role in On the other hand, Charlie Gordon in “Flowers for Algernon” experiences severe mental decay. Losing his intelligence is very confusing to him, especially when he reads old progress reports and realizes he cannot understand most of the words he has written (Flowers for Algernon, July 25). He becomes “touchy and irritable” and even struggles with suicidal thoughts (June 15). He also becomes very forgetful and attends Alice Kinnian’s night class although he has
not been a part of it for quite some time (July 28). At the very end of the short story, he decides to check himself into a nursing home, which shows that he is in even worse condition than he was when the experiment began. Although he was severely illiterate at the beginning of the experiment, he seemed to be very happy and hopeful about his future. Sadly, he got a taste of what it was like to have a brain that functioned normally, and it was ripped away from him just as quickly as it was given to him. Experimentation on human subjects was an extremely dark period of history. It was cruel and inhumane in multiple ways. The subjects were not fully informed on what would be happening to them and were unknowingly withheld treatment. Minority groups were unfairly and frequently taken advantage of due to their low place in society and lack of access to proper treatment. Finally, the physical and mental detriments the subjects face is simply unmatched in every aspect. Although human experimentation is extremely rare in this day and age, it is still important to remember and honor those who lost their lives due to the actions of irresponsible doctors who promised healing and failed to follow through.
Scientific experimentation shows a destructive nature of man through stereotypes. Stereotypes are cruel and heartless. “He makes the same mistakes as the others when they look at a feeble-minded person and laugh because they don’t understand there are human feelings involved. He doesn’t realise I was a person before I came here.” (Keyes, 145) Before the surgery Charlie was looked down upon because of his mental state. However, after the surgery he is treated like he was made by the scientists, as though he was their very own ‘Frankenstein’. This is a destructive nature of man because after the surgery Charlie finds out that his so called friends have been making fun of him his whole life. Stereotypes show a destructive nature of man. “People with mental illness are depicted as burdens to society and incapable of contributing in positive ways to their communities.” (Edney) Through this book the reader knows this statement is false, because Charlie is able to function fairly well in society, considering he has a job and he is doing very well there. Stereotypes show a destructive nature of man because they belittle people and make them feel worthless.
In the 1930s there was no regulation to ensure that the participants were not fully informed of the science experiment nor possible life treating side effects. There was an investigation of Sleeping Sickness; men from a prison volunteered to be subjected on, yet they did not sign a consent form and they were not knowledgeable of the procedure nor protected from unnecessary risk. Closely following, the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment began to make progress in Alabama. The term "Bad Blood" was used by the government professionals to describe what they were trying to cure in these males, yet that term is euphemism and can be used in a broader sense; making it unclear, to the potential subjects, what the doctors were actually treating. Along with the questionable terms, there was not a consent form given to the
The providers actively decide to deceive their patients. They spend the money the government gives them on placeboes. They tell the patients that they are receiving treatment when they are in fact not. This is compounded by the fact that initially, they believe they will get funding for treatment. Miss Evers is told that those in the study will be “first in line” for treatment when an effective treatment becomes available. The first to realize that this is not, in fact, true are the two doctors, Dr. Sam Brodus and Dr. Douglas. Ten years into the study when penicillin is show as an effective cure for syphilis they make the decision not to treat the men. At this point they are no longer doing the study to buy time until they can get treatment for the men, rather they are withholding treatment to watch the men gone through the full range of symptoms that accompany syphilis including death. Still, if the need for dead bodies to autopsy was a requirement of the studies completion and a primary indicator the success of the studies main objective, then the doctors knew from the beginning that they were not buying time until they got treatment for the afflicted men. It is possible they deceived themselves to a certain extent but it is entirely clear that they deceived Miss Evers. She believed that it would only be six months to a year until the men got treatment. Then, after that, she believed for ten years that they men would be first in line once there was a proven treatment. When this became clear it was not the case she questioned the doctors. They convinced her the study had a greater purpose aside from curing the men in it. She wanted to believe it and in many ways, she forced herself to believe it. Still, when viewing the withholding of treatment as unjust she attempted to administer treatment herself. This resulted in a patient committing suicide in a
The study took advantage of an oppressed and vulnerable population that was in need of medical care. Some of the many ethical concerns of this experiment were the lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy, deception of participants, physical harm, mental harm, and a lack of gain versus harm. One ethical problem in this experiment was that the benefits did not outweigh the harm to participants. At the conclusion of the study there were virtually no benefits for the participants or to the treatment of syphilis. We now have
The experiment lasted more than forty years and did not garner media attention until 1972, when it was finally made public by Jean Heller of the Associated Press to an outraged nation. The fact that a medical practitioner would knowingly violate an individual’s rights makes one question their bioethical practices. What gives doctors the right to make a human being a lab rat? When both of these case studies began in the earlier half of the 20th century, African Americans were still fighting for the most
The health professionals were supposed to protect and provide care and treatment to those suffering, in this case from syphilis. Those professionals had taken oaths, but instead they did immoral and illegal things. The health professionals were supposed to help to treat the subject’s disease because it was treatable but ended up causing even more suffering for them for years by watching the experiment subjects suffer and die without any treatment. Miss Ever was torn, yet continued to help Dr. Brodus, the physician that supposedly was treating patients in need but ended up killing slowly them without medication. Eunice urged her boy friends to continue the study, in the hope of future treatment, but the treatment never came, even though the antidote, penicillin, had become available. I, the audience, watched Miss Evers struggle throughout the story with the pros and cons of her choices and decisions. On one hand, she wants to support the experiment; yet, on the other, she wants to protect and comfort her friends. At one point, she stole penicillin to help one of her boys, but he ended up killing himself because of his excruciating suffering for decades. So American citizens, because of the experiment, did not put any trust because of the complicity and lack of affirmative care of medical professionals in America’s public health
Miss Eunice Evers, a nurse is the centerpiece of the movie. In 1932, she is invited to work with Dr. Brodus and Dr. Douglas in facilitating a program that aims at curbing syphilis rates among African Americans in rural Alabama. Patients, including Caleb Humphries and Willie Johnson are offered free treatment under the program. Miss Evers is grateful to be able to serve the patients. But when the government stops the program, a study 'The Tuskegee Experiment'; is launched in which patients are denied necessary medicine. Miss Evers is faced with an impasse - to halt the study experiment. After along time, Evers is to testify before a Senate committee as to what really happened with the controversial
"Nazi Medical Experimentation: The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments." The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
In the film Antwone Fisher (2002), we witness the evolving therapeutic relationship of a psychiatrist, Dr. Jerome Davenport, and his client, Antwone Fisher. As a member of the military, Antwone is mandated to report to therapy sessions with Dr. Davenport after an altercation with a fellow serviceman. The relationship between Antwone and Dr. Davenport evolves beyond their mandated sessions and allows for the exploration of personal issues for both individuals. As a result of this, many ethical dilemmas occur that force Dr. Davenport to make decisions both in line with and against various principle ethics.
The main results that doctors were trying to obtain from this experiment was to gain information about how African Americans men’s bodies reacted to syphilis. During the 1930’s, society believed that black men were inferior to white men, so diseases were supposed to affect differently black men. This study in particular, the participants were not informed about the capacity that this disease could damage their human system and they were not viewed as a human being and they were used as lab rat. Furthermore, one of the doctors who were involved in this experiment Dr. Raymond Vonderlehr used the term “necropsy” that is an autopsy performed on animals when speaking about the participants of this experiment (Mananda R-G, 2012).
In the United States, the basis for ethical protection for human research subjects in clinical research trials are outlined by the Belmont Report developed in the late 1970’s. This document, published by the Nation Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, highlights three important basic principles that are to be considered when any clinical trial will involve human research subjects. They are; respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. (Chadwick & Gunn, 2004)
Throughout history, animal testing has played an important role in leading to new discoveries and human benefit. However, what many people forget are the great numbers of animals that have suffered serious harm during the process of animal testing. Animal testing is the use of animals in biological, medical, and psychological studies. The development and enhancement of medical research has been based on the testing of animals. There are many questions being asked if animal research is good or not or if the benefit for us is way greater the abuse of animals. Doing tests on animals can help find ways to cure diseases, but testing on them is wrong. Although we want to find cures for diseases to help many people, testing on animals not only brutally hurts them but it also denies the animals the rights they have.
Many people are capable of making their own decisions and sometimes these include ethical choices. This is an idea that contains making a rational decision between what is right and wrong. Most people struggle with making the right decision to get the intended, desired outcome. It is a choice that centers on personal conscience. One may know the right choice by instinct, but there are times in which people have to think about the outcome and challenge their morals. In the novel, The Devil and Miss Prym a young girl Chantal finds herself in a tough situation when a stranger visits town and offers her a choice to break her morals and steal, or give the opportunity to the village to murder for money. She tells the village and they decide to kill the eldest, Chantal stands up to them and eventually the decision is made not to murder and the stranger is forced to admit that people are neither good or evil, they are simply human. A film that also faces decisions is Sophie’s Choice where a young mother is sent
The history of animal experimentation and tests, and the argument surrounding it, has an expansive and somewhat extensive history. Some of the first medical research that was conducted on living animals was done by Aelius Galenus, better known as Galen, in the second century C.E. There have been examples of animal testing in earlier dates, but Galen devoted his life to understanding science and medicine, so he is attributed to being the father of vivisection. In the twelfth century, an Arabic physician named Avenzoar introduced animal testing dissections as a means to better understand surgery before preforming the operation on a human patient. Edmund O’Meara made one of the first opposing ar...
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.