Willowbrook Syphilis Experiments
When we think of medical research and testing, we know that it is a necessary part of the advancement of medicine. When research involves human subjects, we assume that all subjects are being treated morally, and that the researchers will be conducting the studies with respect to the subject’s natural rights as a human being. History shows us that medical studies have not always been conducted this way. The Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, The Tuskegee Syphilis experiments, and the Hepatitis studies at the Willowbrook State School, are a few examples of highly unethical research studies that have previously been conducted. Willowbrook State School may be one of the hardest to consider ethically, because it involved studying children.
Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York was an institution for mentally disabled or delayed children. Saul Krugman began his work with Willowbrook …show more content…
Though there are plenty of arguments on whether or not Krugman’s actions should be deemed moral, I do not think there is any denying that he clearly violated those children’s rights, and did not their best interest. Since he did find an active immunity approach to the Hepatitis virus, and ultimately he reduced the presence of hepatitis within the facility, a utilitarian approach may suggest that he was acting in the best interest of humanity and the children after all. However, there was no guarantee of knowing that his research would have a positive outcome. He could very well have infected all those children with the hepatitis virus, to only conclude more knowledge on the virus and no positive effect on controlling or lessening the numbers of those affected by it. I would identify more with Kant’s theory on this particular issue and say that you cannot invade personal rights, or treat someone as a means, and call the act
Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York was an institution for mentally disabled or delayed children. Saul Krugman began his work with Willowbrook …show more content…
Though there are plenty of arguments on whether or not Krugman’s actions should be deemed moral, I do not think there is any denying that he clearly violated those children’s rights, and did not their best interest. Since he did find an active immunity approach to the Hepatitis virus, and ultimately he reduced the presence of hepatitis within the facility, a utilitarian approach may suggest that he was acting in the best interest of humanity and the children after all. However, there was no guarantee of knowing that his research would have a positive outcome. He could very well have infected all those children with the hepatitis virus, to only conclude more knowledge on the virus and no positive effect on controlling or lessening the numbers of those affected by it. I would identify more with Kant’s theory on this particular issue and say that you cannot invade personal rights, or treat someone as a means, and call the act