10.05.2015 Views

Human Dignity and Bioethics

Human Dignity and Bioethics

Human Dignity and Bioethics

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

22 | F. Daniel Davis<br />

been reported. The preceding decade of the 1960s was marked by<br />

repeated disclosures of unethical conduct in clinical research. From<br />

1963 to 1966, for example, the Willowbrook State School for “mentally<br />

defective persons” in New York was the site of a study of the<br />

natural history of infectious hepatitis <strong>and</strong> of the effectiveness of<br />

gamma globulin in its prevention <strong>and</strong> treatment. Researchers at Willowbrook<br />

deliberately infected children with the hepatitis virus, later<br />

arguing in their own defense that infection was inevitable due to<br />

the poor hygienic conditions at the school. Willowbrook was closed<br />

to new admissions during the study, but space remained available<br />

in the institution’s hepatitis program—<strong>and</strong> parents who wished to<br />

admit their children to the school had little choice but to agree to<br />

their enrollment in the study. The year 1963 also marked the initiation<br />

of a study of cancer immunology at New York City’s Jewish<br />

Chronic Disease Hospital, where clinical investigators injected live<br />

cancer cells into patients hospitalized for various chronic diseases—<br />

without the patients’ knowledge (although the researchers did claim<br />

that oral consent had been sought but not documented). And in<br />

1966, in the New Engl<strong>and</strong> Journal of Medicine, Harvard’s Henry K.<br />

Beecher (who chaired the Harvard ad hoc committee that proposed<br />

a neurological st<strong>and</strong>ard for determining death) described his analysis<br />

of 22 ongoing clinical studies involving unethical practices in human<br />

subjects research. 9 Concluding that such practices were far from<br />

uncommon, Beecher ended his controversial exposé with a broadside<br />

against the utilitarian defense of their legitimacy: “An experiment<br />

is ethical or not at its inception; it does not become ethical post<br />

hoc—ends do not justify the means.” 10 Thus, with the uproar over<br />

Tuskegee, a steadily mounting concern, fueled by one revelation of<br />

abuse after another, reached such a crescendo that in 1973 Congress<br />

began a series of hearings, aiming both to prevent further abuses <strong>and</strong><br />

to grapple with the paradoxical challenge of harvesting the fruits of<br />

biomedical science <strong>and</strong> technology while mitigating their dangers.<br />

The National Commission was born of this resolve.<br />

Over the next four years, the Commission issued seven reports. 11<br />

Several were in fulfillment of the Commission’s legislative m<strong>and</strong>ate:<br />

Research Involving the Fetus (1975), Research Involving Prisoners<br />

(1976), Research Involving Children (1977), Psychosurgery: Report <strong>and</strong><br />

Recommendations (1977), Disclosure of Research Information under the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!