Difference between revisions of "Resource:63435d54-ed0e-4d06-abdc-75a91b5a7661"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=History, Ethics and the Presidential Commission on Research in Guatemala | |Title=History, Ethics and the Presidential Commission on Research in Guatemala | ||
| − | |Is About=In 2010, President Obama instructed the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to enquire into research carried out by the US Public Health Service in Guatemala between 1946 and 1948. These studies entailed the deliberate inoculation of unconsenting prisoners, mental asylum patients and soldiers, with venereal disease. There was also evidence of deception and secrecy. The Commission’s report describes the research as heinous, egregious, unconscionable and unjustifiable, and identified those responsible as morally blameworthy. However, this article argues that the Commission was deficient in its historical analysis, and failed to appreciate particular disease and temporal factors that might cast the research in a slightly different light<ref> | + | |Is About=In 2010, President Obama instructed the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to enquire into research carried out by the US Public Health Service in Guatemala between 1946 and 1948. These studies entailed the deliberate inoculation of unconsenting prisoners, mental asylum patients and soldiers, with venereal disease. There was also evidence of deception and secrecy. The Commission’s report describes the research as heinous, egregious, unconscionable and unjustifiable, and identified those responsible as morally blameworthy. However, this article argues that the Commission was deficient in its historical analysis, and failed to appreciate particular disease and temporal factors that might cast the research in a slightly different light<ref>Lyons, Barry. "History, ethics and the Presidential Commission on Research in Guatemala." ''Public Health Ethics'' 7.3 (2014): 211-224.</ref>. This is a factual case. |
| − | + | <references /> | |
| − | |||
| − | This is a factual case. | ||
|Important Because=It is important to be critical about the Commission's analysis. | |Important Because=It is important to be critical about the Commission's analysis. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 17: | Line 10: | ||
|Has Link=https://academic.oup.com/phe/article-abstract/7/3/211/1483697?redirectedFrom=fulltext | |Has Link=https://academic.oup.com/phe/article-abstract/7/3/211/1483697?redirectedFrom=fulltext | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:9ac8c1db-f98b-41ee-858d-a8c93a647108 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
|Involves=Dr John C. Cutler; Carlos Funes | |Involves=Dr John C. Cutler; Carlos Funes | ||
Revision as of 18:24, 26 May 2020
ResourcesCases
History, Ethics and the Presidential Commission on Research in Guatemala
What is this about?
In 2010, President Obama instructed the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to enquire into research carried out by the US Public Health Service in Guatemala between 1946 and 1948. These studies entailed the deliberate inoculation of unconsenting prisoners, mental asylum patients and soldiers, with venereal disease. There was also evidence of deception and secrecy. The Commission’s report describes the research as heinous, egregious, unconscionable and unjustifiable, and identified those responsible as morally blameworthy. However, this article argues that the Commission was deficient in its historical analysis, and failed to appreciate particular disease and temporal factors that might cast the research in a slightly different light[1]. This is a factual case.
- ↑ Lyons, Barry. "History, ethics and the Presidential Commission on Research in Guatemala." Public Health Ethics 7.3 (2014): 211-224.
Why is this important?
It is important to be critical about the Commission's analysis.
