nature of the study. The researchers told the men that they were receiving free treatment for syphilis when in actuality the goal of the study prohibited the men from actually receiving care. Participants were not autonomous in their decision to partake in the study (p. 42). Coming from impoverished background and unable to afford their own healthcare caused a conflict in their ability to make a deliberate decision to enter the study. Also, the withholding of information and lies about the purpose of the study took away their autonomy in entirety. Following this pattern, the inducements offered to participants clearly coerced the participants to join the study (p. 55). It must be noted that this study is considered to have greater than minimal risk to participants (p. 51). By refusing the men of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study medical treatment for syphilis, many lives were lost. In current times, researchers must submit an application to the IRB if they wish to conduct a study with greater than minimal risk with data and proof that the study is necessary. The IRB works to ensure that the principle of beneficence is met by studies proposed (p. 39). In the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, it is unquestionable that the risks and harmful effects of the study far outweighed the marginal benefits of the results. It is stated in The Deadly Deception that no important scientific gains were made from conducting the study. This clearly violates the principle of beneficence. The long timeline of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study is perhaps one of the most horrific qualities of the experiment.
In The Deadly Deception it is noted that the study persisted through multiple decades and major historic events. An illustration of this is that those involved in conducting the Tuskegee Syphilis Study did not understand or accept that their actions were comparable to those of the Nazis in regards to their treatment of human subjects. The disillusionment of the researchers is apparent through their negligence of laws, facts, and human decency. When the study finally concluded in 1972, the participants were not given an adequate debriefing (p. 47). One subject only found out the truth about the experiment through reading about the twenty-eight deaths in the
newspaper. The conclusion of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study came about through the government investigation initiated after the story broke in the Washington Star newspaper. It is curious that the government was quick to end the study at this point considering tax dollars, government employees, and health initiatives were the proponents of the study since the beginnings. This longitudinal error in judgment across the board affected hundreds of men and their families. In 1947, an effective and popular treatment for syphilis became introduced in the United States; however, the men participating in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study were never offered the treatment. The men from this experiment were not given justice (p. 50). They were a marginalized group in society and therefore unable to protest. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is a popular example of how justice was taken from subjects in an unethical research study in that racism, poverty, and misuse of authority all led to an overhaul of humane principles. The compensations they received after the nature of the study went public cannot compare to the irrevocable physical and mental harm directly caused by their involvement in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.