Miaa Ever's Boys

Kumeren Govender- 212504178

Case Study 4

1. What does the title of the film Miss Evers's Boys' refer to?

The movie's name comes from the fact that a performing dancer and three musicians named their act for her - "Miss Evers' Boys” in her honor and her failed romance with Caleb Humphries (Laurence Fishburne), an experimental subject who obtained penicillin from a military doctor and left the study to fight in World War II. One character, Willie Johnson, is the star performing dancer who is known as the “best double fly stepper” in the area. Ben Washington plays the washboard, Hodman Humphries plays the beat while Caleb Humphries plays base. The development of symptoms of syphilis in these characters, other than Caleb who gains his own access to penicillin, provide the dramatization not only of the course of the disease but of the history of the project. Willie, the dancer, experiences effects on his skeletal system as his bone cartilage deteriorates. Another character, Ben, becomes increasingly mentally disordered as the virus moves to his brain.

2. Having seen the film and then the debate, would you have carried out the Tuskegee study? Provide reasons for your response

No I would not have carried out the Tuskegee study. This is because of major violation of human rights particularly that of the Negros. The first major ethical issue in this study is the fact that treatment was withheld from participants for research purposes which lead to premature deaths. This is the severest charge against the study and goes against human rights. Patient wellbeing was consistently overlooked, although there have been multiple attempts to justify why penicillin treatment was withheld. Defenses included that some physicians felt that repair of existing damage would be minimal, and others felt that the damage that could result from reactions to the penicillin therapy, including fever, heart attacks, and aneurysms that would outweigh its benefits. They argue that at the time of the Tuskegee Study, no data was available on the efficiency of penicillin treatment in late syphilis, and short- and long-term toxic effects of drugs had not been well documented. In summary, researchers judged that the benefits of non-treatment outweighed the benefits of treatment. However the subjects were never given a choice about continuing in the study once penicillin had become available; in fact, they were prevented from getting treatment. Treatment was not offered, and even when the experiment ended in 1972, the remaining funds could not be used for treatment, according to USPHS grant guidelines. This violates the principles of benevolence and the best interests of the participants were violated. Furthermore this violated the principle of justice as Negros were disproportionally not offered treatment where as white people and higher socioeconomic groups were offered treatment.

The second main ethical issue to be considered is the issue of informed consent. This refers to the process of informing potential research participants about all aspects of the research that might reasonably influence their decision to participate. Full disclosure should be done and all risks and benefits explained. At that time a major unresolved issue was exactly how far researchers’ obligations extend to research participants. Another concern has to do with the possibility that a participant may feel pressured to agree or might not understand precisely what he or she is agreeing to. In the Tuskegee study the investigators took advantage of a poor and deprived socioeconomic condition in which the participants had experienced low levels of care throughout their life. The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) practiced deception in recruiting subjects for the study as was never explained to the subjects that the survey was designed to detect syphilis. The term ‘bad blood’ which was a local colloquialism for almost any disease from anemia to cancer, was used by the doctors and never defined for the participants in the study. Furthermore subjects were never told about the diagnosis of syphilis, the course of the disease, or treatment that was available. The ‘treatment’ offered was spinal taps, which were described as “spinal shots” which really was to monitor the course and not for therapeutic purpose at all.