Tuskegee Redux: Evolution of Legal Mandates for Human Experimentation

Abstract

Human health experiments systematically expose people to conditions beyond the boundaries of medical evidence. Such experiments have included legal-medical collaboration, exemplified in the US by the PHS Syphilis Study (Tuskegee). That medical experiment was legal, conforming to segregationist protocols and specific legislative authorization which excluded a selected group of African Americans from any medical protection from syphilis. Subsequent corrective action outlawed unethical medical experiments but did not address other forms of collaboration, including PHS submission to laws which may have placed African American women at increased risk from AIDS and breast cancer. Today, anti-lobbying law makes it a felony for PHS workers to openly question legally anointed suspension of medical evidence. African Americans and other vulnerable populations may thereby face excess risks -- not only from cancer, but also from motor vehicle crashes, firearm assault, end stage renal disease and other problems -- with PHS workers as silent partners.

Across Time: A Chronological Progression of Clinical Trials in India

“…However, issues like placebo use and post-trial access remain contentious. Legal instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, underscored the right to refuse medical treatment without consent, further reinforced by revelations of abuses like the Tuskegee study [ 8 ]. In the United States, the National Research Act of 1974 and the Belmont Report of 1979 were pivotal in shaping ethical standards for human research [ 9 ].…”

Historical Origins of the Tuskegee Experiment: The Dilemma of Public Health in the United States

“…벨몬트 보고서는 헬싱키 선언을 미국적으로 실천하기 위한 결과물로서, 인간을 대상으로 하는 연구를 수행하는 사람이라면 모두 읽어야 하는 지침서로 향후 모든 임상연구의 기초가 되는 세 가지 기본 윤리 원칙인 “인간존중, 선행, 정의”를 정하고 있다. 여기에 속한 것이 바로 정보에 기초한 동의서의 확보, 위험의 최소화, 피험자 선정의 공정성 등이다( Levine et al, 2012 ).…”