Was The Tuskegee Experiment A Case Of Administrative Evil?

1. Was the Tuskegee experiment a case of “administrative evil?”

Yes, the Tuskegee experiment is a case of administrative evil. According to Morrison (2011), administrative evil occurs when an environment lacking compassion or conscience is allowed to govern decision making. The blind belief in technology, science and the power of reason drives an organization or individual (Morrison, 2011, p.277). Advancement is more important than human suffering. In fact, the human suffering caused by the advancement is reasoned as a good cause because those seeking advancement are acting as “change agents” (Smolin, 2012, p.239). The problem with acting as a change agent is that the view is one-sided, narrowly focusing on certain issues. Therefore, “they may not be attuned to other values; they may not acknowledge proper limits on means toward what they view as an overriding end; they may not care to account for the problem of unintended consequences” (Smolin, 2012, p.239). Therefore, “change agents” can do “horrific things with a seemingly clear conscience” (Smolin, 2012, p.236).

I think that is exactly what happened with the Tuskegee Study. They meant well, but desiring to be change agents clouded their conscience and inflicted great pain and suffering

on a vulnerable population.

2. What was the impact of technology on this case?
The occurrence of syphilis incidents was high, especially among the Afro-American residents of Macon County, Alabama (Smolin, 2012). During this time, treatments included heavy metals like arsenic, which had horrible side effects (Smolin, 2012). Therefore, due to high incidents and due to lack of treatment for Macon County residents, medical researcher provided support for syphilis treatment. Eventually, the financial support ceased, but further study and treatment were needed. Therefore, to continue the study of syphilis affects, the unethical human experimentation of the Tuskegee Study was established. Medical researchers deemed it necessary to conduct unethical practices on men infected with syphilis because they reasoned it advanced medical technology.
They erroneously reasoned it appropriate to use the Afro-African American men because they were less likely to receive treatment and this would document the effects of when public health issues are neglected in society (Smolin, 2012). Documentation would show the degrees of harm. It also answered questions regarding any “disparate effects in different racial groups” (Smolin, 2012).

3. What principles of ethics are involved in this case?
Principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence and beneficence, and justice are the key ethical principles involved in this case. The moment the medical researchers decided to conceal information, whether it be the name of experiment to treatment, from participants and provide misleading information to participants they violated the autonomy principle. The participants could not make an informed decision without all the information or with deceptive information. I think it’s important to note that it was common practice for medical researchers to provide misleading information to research subjects during the time of the Tuskegee study (Smolin, 2012).

Justice was also violated.

It is injustice to withhold treatment when it is available. They did not fairly distribute medication. In fact, they purposely mislead the participant to believe that they were treating them when, in fact, they were not. Also, they withheld diagnosis from the participants as well. The researchers wanted to “watch the effects over time of untreated syphilis” (Smolin, 2012, p. 231). They purposely watched men die (or go insane) and did not help them, but lead them to believe they were helping them. Lastly, the length of time violates justice as well. 40 years is a long time to willfully to watch people suffer and die. All of these actions were deliberate. I would say this is criminal and

inhumane.
Nonmaleficence and beneficence were violated because the medical researchers caused great harm to their patients. They did not show kindness, either. Some may argue they showed kindness because the medical personnel helped ease disease complications as they arose by being compassionate, understanding and providing support. I say that is not showing compassion, understanding or support when one causes another to be sick in order to receive those acts of kindness. I call that deception and evilness.

4. What would four (4) of the Big 8 say about the Tuskegee experiment?

Mill would argue that this violates the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is to love thy neighbor as thy self (Morrison, 2011). The researchers would not have allowed a disease to overtake their bodies and not use successful treatment to cure it, if it was available. Also, according to Mill’s belief, the consequences should have halted this study. First, the consequence of human suffering is a main factor. Secondly, the untreated participants posed a greater chance of infecting their wives, children and the rest of the community. This study did not create the greatest good because the outcomes were horrific.
Rawls would see this as a lack of social justice. Social justice is the belief that certain people need protection (Morrison, 2011). He refers to those people as people in a “lesser position in society” (Morrison, 2011, p.13). The Afro-American men of Macon County, Alabama were just that, a vulnerable people. They lacked necessary resources, education and means in society. They are black and in American during a time when racism ruled nearly every decision. They were probably in what some may consider the racist south, which purposely made it difficult for Black advancement. So for those reasons, the experiment warranted special attention before implementing.
Buber may argue that the experiment is a good example of “I-I” and “I-IT” relationships (Morrison, 2012, p.17). Not at one time did the study benefit participants or treat them with respect, dignity and value. The researchers used the men to benefit the organization. Tuskegee University may have wanted to become a change agent in medicine among the black community and white America. The federal government had some invested interests as well.
Kohlberg would support that experiments like Tuskegee Study clearly show how American lacked the moral development in science at the time. Kohlberg believes there are six levels of moral development (Morrison, 2012). One must advance through stages, but in no particular order. However, for one to understand the higher level, he must grasp the concepts in the lower level. Challenges and decision-making pushes one through the various stages of moral development. Level II, in particular, is the stage where one is focused on personal reward. In relation to Tuskegee, researchers conducted this study because they were hoping to receive personal gain through national recognition. Since this study and the unveiling of its unethical practices, human research has gone through many ethical developments.