Miss Evers Boys Film Analysis
The Tuskegee Syphilis study took place in Macon County, Alabama. The United States Public Health Service was initially interested in conducting this study, in regards to how untreated syphilis grew and affected the African American man. While the study was being conducted, there were many situations that occurred, and really the entire study, that became ethically questionable to many who were unaware of what the study was in its entirety. Watching the movie “Miss Evers’ Boys” gave a better view of how those included in the study were treated, and what they felt being participants, and how some of the staff within the study felt about what was going on. This study all in all was a questionable, even to those who were working within.
A little about the study before breaking apart what was wrong with how it was conducted; this took place around the 1930s, in the Southern United States. The movie “Miss Evers’ Boys” was a movie scripted to tell the stories of those involved in the study, most importantly Miss Evers, who was a nurse involved in the study. The movie goes to show how she felt throughout, while wanting to help the men that she had grown close with, but also wanting to help make a medical discovery. There were also two male doctors …show more content…
who were conducting the study through the United States Public Health Services (USPHS), who initially hired Miss Evers. The direction of the study was changed after beginning as an actual study to help to treat the infected men, it became a study of placebo’s and how the disease affected them when receiving no treatment.
The government involvement in this study was rather minimal once the study was on its feet and the doctors understood their instructions. From the movie, the government was running the study to see if African American men responded to syphilis the same way that Caucasian men responded, as the infection spread through their bodies. The government decided that they would tell the participants that they had “bad blood” but not to inform them that what they actually had was syphilis. The whole point of the study was to identify if the natural course of the disease differed between the African American and Caucasian male, therefore the authorities of the study found it necessary to withhold the diagnosis of each man. However, when they realized that their “bad blood” was killing them, the doctors told them that the only available drug to help them, could actually harm them, so they couldn’t take the available penicillin. The ethical principle of utility sees things as justifiable, if they benefit more members of society with the results, than how many people were harmed in getting there. So, utilitarian’s would justify the government’s actions to not tell the participants, if they thought that the way in which they were compelling the subjects to act was “for their own good” than lying to them about the actual conditions was legitimate. (Munson, p 51) The principle of utility (utilitarianism) states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to product the reverse of happiness”. (Munson, p. 471) A person practicing utilitarianism might also view the subjects infected with syphilis as “” less valuable” members of society” because they are infected, some could have had irreversible damage to their bodies already, so carrying out the study with them as participants would have been justified. (Munson, p.110)
While utilitarianism supports the government’s decision, many of the other ethical theories would feel the complete opposite, and agree that what the government did was wrong and unjustified. Kant Ethics, would view what was done as morally wrong, as one of the features to these is that “no matter what the consequences may be, it is always wrong to lie” and another being “we must always treat people as ends and not as means only”. (Munson, p. 481) Both features would be violated; first, by lying to the participants and not telling them that they had syphilis, and then not telling them about the availability of penicillin to treat their illness. Secondly, the government treated these participants like lab rats, using them solely to get results for their study, and never truly thinking about what would be the best treatment for the men to relieve their symptoms, or slow the progression of the syphilis. So, depending on what theory or ethical principle you are referencing, the government’s actions could or could not be justified.
Miss Evers held a strong role (as perceived through the movie) for nearly the entire study.
At the beginning, she was sure that they physicians shouldn’t tell the men about their syphilis, because it would scare them off and they would never take part in the study. Instead, she insisted they just tell the men that they had “bad blood”, and let them know that if they participated they would get treatment for free, and a couple other added bonuses. Miss Evers and the rest of those included in running the study deprived the men of their autonomy when they told the participants that they were getting the right medical treatment, when in reality their progression of the illness was merely being recorded and compared. (Munson,
p.509)
A utilitarian would not see the need for informed consent, so when others see the participants being stripped of their autonomy because they were never properly or completely to give informed consent, a utilitarian would not see it as wrong. (Munson, p. 110) However, if the individuals did not appear to be competent to give consent to what they were told about, a utilitarian would not include them in the study, so if there were participants admitted to the study that were either too ill or not educated enough to make a sound, completely individual decision, a utilitarian would have thought that it was wrong. (Munson, p. 111) Utilitarian’s might see the suffering of these “few” men to be a small price to pay for the great utility it would produce for others, assuming they made a great discovery at the conclusion of the study, which would attribute to why they conducted the study in the first place, to benefit the greater good. A utilitarian’s reaction to Miss Evers’ treatment of autonomy as acceptable, because they would see the need for this study to benefit the greater good, and likely overlook how the study affected the men that were actually involved.
Kant ethics really disapproves of this study from every aspect. Since the participants were not told everything about the study, they were not fully autonomous, and therefore unable to give a clear, informed consent. Kant also identifies a limit; “we have a duty to preserve our lives, so no one should agree to become a subject in an experiment in which the likelihood of death is great”. (Munson, p.111) The participants were under the impression that when they entered this study they would be getting the treatment that they needed, however they didn’t. The men who entered the study were really entering a group of others infected, that would all get to suffer through the effects of syphilis and die together, still thinking that they were being treated. From a Kant’s ethics perspective, the men’s autonomy was taken from them by not allowing them to truly give informed consent, as these men were more or less forced to accept the treatment by Miss Evers for their own good, and the research was done with them as the subjects really for the good of others, both which violate Kant’s view of autonomy. (Munson, p. 111) A person subscribed to Kant’s ethics would not be okay with how Miss Evers’ treated the men’s autonomy, they would find that she really took most of their autonomy from them, and continued to do so throughout the study.
Rawl’s Theory has a very clear line as to what is okay in research and what is not. This theory would dismiss any study that “makes use of coercion or deception”. (Munson, p.112) Rawl’s Theory also requires informed consent, which has already been established as not received from the men in the study, as they were not provided with the correct information regarding the study. Another part of Rawl’s Theory associated with autonomy is not taking advantage of those who are least well off, in order to benefit others that are better off. (Munson, p. 112) Someone who identifies closely with Rawl’s Theory would see that Miss Evers’ did with the men’s autonomy was wrong; they were not given informed consent, they were seen as least better off, and the men were coerced into participating in the study.
Kant’s ethics and Rawls’ Theory participants would all react in a way to show that Miss Evers’ treatment of autonomy was wrong, and she really took that from the men who she recruited for the study, even though at the time she might have thought that she was doing what was best for the men. Utilitarianism would not see a problem with how Miss Evers treated the autonomy of the men, as she was doing what was best for the greater good, and if consent isn’t really needed, then the men still have their autonomy. This shows that how a situation is viewed really depends of the ethical principles or theories that are being associated.
People will argue either way that Miss Evers’ assertions were right or wrong. A utilitarian would think what she did was okay, but someone subject to Kant’s ethics or Rawl’s theory would not agree. More often than not I feel as though I personally identify more with Kant’s ethics, so I feel that she could have chosen a better path to follow as far as how she performed during the time of the study. Kant’s ethics emphasizes heavily on the idea that lying is never okay. Miss Evers’ lied to the men about their condition, which shouldn’t have been done, and also kept from them the news about penicillin, which would have possibly treated their conditions. Personally, I wouldn’t have lied to the men about their condition in the beginning, I would have told them that they have syphilis, and that a study was being conducted to see how it affects them. If they still wanted to participate, I would have told them the second I knew that penicillin would help them, because as a person involved in health care, normally you want to do everything you can to help others. I do not agree with Miss Evers’ assertions, and if practicing with Kant’s ethics in mind, what she did in the study by keeping information from the men, and lying to them was morally wrong.
Miss Evers was a woman that the men trusted to take care of them, and although she did her best within realms of the study and what she was instructed to do, she should have reached out and expressed her concern with what was being done to the men, or lack of what was being done to help them.
A little about the study before breaking apart what was wrong with how it was conducted; this took place around the 1930s, in the Southern United States. The movie “Miss Evers’ Boys” was a movie scripted to tell the stories of those involved in the study, most importantly Miss Evers, who was a nurse involved in the study. The movie goes to show how she felt throughout, while wanting to help the men that she had grown close with, but also wanting to help make a medical discovery. There were also two male doctors …show more content…
who were conducting the study through the United States Public Health Services (USPHS), who initially hired Miss Evers. The direction of the study was changed after beginning as an actual study to help to treat the infected men, it became a study of placebo’s and how the disease affected them when receiving no treatment.
The government involvement in this study was rather minimal once the study was on its feet and the doctors understood their instructions. From the movie, the government was running the study to see if African American men responded to syphilis the same way that Caucasian men responded, as the infection spread through their bodies. The government decided that they would tell the participants that they had “bad blood” but not to inform them that what they actually had was syphilis. The whole point of the study was to identify if the natural course of the disease differed between the African American and Caucasian male, therefore the authorities of the study found it necessary to withhold the diagnosis of each man. However, when they realized that their “bad blood” was killing them, the doctors told them that the only available drug to help them, could actually harm them, so they couldn’t take the available penicillin. The ethical principle of utility sees things as justifiable, if they benefit more members of society with the results, than how many people were harmed in getting there. So, utilitarian’s would justify the government’s actions to not tell the participants, if they thought that the way in which they were compelling the subjects to act was “for their own good” than lying to them about the actual conditions was legitimate. (Munson, p 51) The principle of utility (utilitarianism) states that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to product the reverse of happiness”. (Munson, p. 471) A person practicing utilitarianism might also view the subjects infected with syphilis as “” less valuable” members of society” because they are infected, some could have had irreversible damage to their bodies already, so carrying out the study with them as participants would have been justified. (Munson, p.110)
While utilitarianism supports the government’s decision, many of the other ethical theories would feel the complete opposite, and agree that what the government did was wrong and unjustified. Kant Ethics, would view what was done as morally wrong, as one of the features to these is that “no matter what the consequences may be, it is always wrong to lie” and another being “we must always treat people as ends and not as means only”. (Munson, p. 481) Both features would be violated; first, by lying to the participants and not telling them that they had syphilis, and then not telling them about the availability of penicillin to treat their illness. Secondly, the government treated these participants like lab rats, using them solely to get results for their study, and never truly thinking about what would be the best treatment for the men to relieve their symptoms, or slow the progression of the syphilis. So, depending on what theory or ethical principle you are referencing, the government’s actions could or could not be justified.
Miss Evers held a strong role (as perceived through the movie) for nearly the entire study.
At the beginning, she was sure that they physicians shouldn’t tell the men about their syphilis, because it would scare them off and they would never take part in the study. Instead, she insisted they just tell the men that they had “bad blood”, and let them know that if they participated they would get treatment for free, and a couple other added bonuses. Miss Evers and the rest of those included in running the study deprived the men of their autonomy when they told the participants that they were getting the right medical treatment, when in reality their progression of the illness was merely being recorded and compared. (Munson,
p.509)
A utilitarian would not see the need for informed consent, so when others see the participants being stripped of their autonomy because they were never properly or completely to give informed consent, a utilitarian would not see it as wrong. (Munson, p. 110) However, if the individuals did not appear to be competent to give consent to what they were told about, a utilitarian would not include them in the study, so if there were participants admitted to the study that were either too ill or not educated enough to make a sound, completely individual decision, a utilitarian would have thought that it was wrong. (Munson, p. 111) Utilitarian’s might see the suffering of these “few” men to be a small price to pay for the great utility it would produce for others, assuming they made a great discovery at the conclusion of the study, which would attribute to why they conducted the study in the first place, to benefit the greater good. A utilitarian’s reaction to Miss Evers’ treatment of autonomy as acceptable, because they would see the need for this study to benefit the greater good, and likely overlook how the study affected the men that were actually involved.
Kant ethics really disapproves of this study from every aspect. Since the participants were not told everything about the study, they were not fully autonomous, and therefore unable to give a clear, informed consent. Kant also identifies a limit; “we have a duty to preserve our lives, so no one should agree to become a subject in an experiment in which the likelihood of death is great”. (Munson, p.111) The participants were under the impression that when they entered this study they would be getting the treatment that they needed, however they didn’t. The men who entered the study were really entering a group of others infected, that would all get to suffer through the effects of syphilis and die together, still thinking that they were being treated. From a Kant’s ethics perspective, the men’s autonomy was taken from them by not allowing them to truly give informed consent, as these men were more or less forced to accept the treatment by Miss Evers for their own good, and the research was done with them as the subjects really for the good of others, both which violate Kant’s view of autonomy. (Munson, p. 111) A person subscribed to Kant’s ethics would not be okay with how Miss Evers’ treated the men’s autonomy, they would find that she really took most of their autonomy from them, and continued to do so throughout the study.
Rawl’s Theory has a very clear line as to what is okay in research and what is not. This theory would dismiss any study that “makes use of coercion or deception”. (Munson, p.112) Rawl’s Theory also requires informed consent, which has already been established as not received from the men in the study, as they were not provided with the correct information regarding the study. Another part of Rawl’s Theory associated with autonomy is not taking advantage of those who are least well off, in order to benefit others that are better off. (Munson, p. 112) Someone who identifies closely with Rawl’s Theory would see that Miss Evers’ did with the men’s autonomy was wrong; they were not given informed consent, they were seen as least better off, and the men were coerced into participating in the study.
Kant’s ethics and Rawls’ Theory participants would all react in a way to show that Miss Evers’ treatment of autonomy was wrong, and she really took that from the men who she recruited for the study, even though at the time she might have thought that she was doing what was best for the men. Utilitarianism would not see a problem with how Miss Evers treated the autonomy of the men, as she was doing what was best for the greater good, and if consent isn’t really needed, then the men still have their autonomy. This shows that how a situation is viewed really depends of the ethical principles or theories that are being associated.
People will argue either way that Miss Evers’ assertions were right or wrong. A utilitarian would think what she did was okay, but someone subject to Kant’s ethics or Rawl’s theory would not agree. More often than not I feel as though I personally identify more with Kant’s ethics, so I feel that she could have chosen a better path to follow as far as how she performed during the time of the study. Kant’s ethics emphasizes heavily on the idea that lying is never okay. Miss Evers’ lied to the men about their condition, which shouldn’t have been done, and also kept from them the news about penicillin, which would have possibly treated their conditions. Personally, I wouldn’t have lied to the men about their condition in the beginning, I would have told them that they have syphilis, and that a study was being conducted to see how it affects them. If they still wanted to participate, I would have told them the second I knew that penicillin would help them, because as a person involved in health care, normally you want to do everything you can to help others. I do not agree with Miss Evers’ assertions, and if practicing with Kant’s ethics in mind, what she did in the study by keeping information from the men, and lying to them was morally wrong.
Miss Evers was a woman that the men trusted to take care of them, and although she did her best within realms of the study and what she was instructed to do, she should have reached out and expressed her concern with what was being done to the men, or lack of what was being done to help them.