A Lesson from the “Ethically Impossible” Guatemalan STD studies

Yesterday the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues announced the release of its report titled “Ethically Impossible” detailing its investigation into the U.S. Public Health Service studies conducted in Guatemala in the 1940s that involved intentionally exposing vulnerable populations to sexually transmitted diseases without the subjects’ consent. They concluded that “the Guatemala experiments involved unconscionable basic violations of ethics, even as judged against the researchers’ own recognition of the requirements of the medical ethics of the day.”  Commission Chair Amy Gutmann said, “A civilization can be judged by the way that it treats it most vulnerable individuals…in this dark chapter of our medical history we grievously failed to keep that covenant.”

It seems to me that people are likely to respond to this report by saying, “Of course that was wrong.  No one would do that today.” But I think the most important lesson to learn from the report is why those who approved these obviously unethical studies did so.  The report shows that they justified what they did by citing the urgent need for proven methods to treat and prevent STDs in the military forces fighting World War II.  They were being good utilitarians.  When there is much good that can be done for many people by doing something it is easy to overlook those who are being hurt and whose inherent value as human beings is being ignored.

It happens when the need for organs to be transplanted causes people to suggest paying donors for their organs without considering the value of those who will be exploited.  Or when the desire to provide cures for spinal cord injuries or Parkinson’s disease leads people to destroy embryos to use their stem cells for research.  If we focus solely on what we can accomplish without being concerned about protecting those who are unable to protect themselves we fall too easily into immoral behavior.

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Erik ClaryJohn Kilner Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Kilner
John Kilner

You’ve hit the utilitarian nail right on the head! It’s also noteworthy what happens once these kinds of utilitarian judgments are made. We decide to pursue some wonderful accomplishment, even though we know it will seriously harm a minority. But our conscience makes us uneasy about what we are doing. So we (perhaps unconsciously) then engage in an effort to rationalize what we are doing by finding some reason that those who will be harmed do not warrant the same respect and protections as others. Embryos are not as truly people as adults are; impoverished people or native Americans are… Read more »

Erik Clary

Excellent post, Steve. On the question of paying for donated organs, I am reminded of Gilbert Meilaender’s 1999 article in National Review (October 11), entitled “‘Strip-mining’ the Dead: When human organs are for sale.” The push to eliminate suffering wed to a inordinate preoccupation with individual freedom, Meilaender argues, breeds such a severe moral callousness that we have forgotten “how to shudder” when confronted with truly inhumane proposals.