Bad blood assignment.
I need an explanation for this Political Science question to help me study.
Please respond to these questions using complete sentences and following the rules of good writing. One paragraph is required for each question.
- From 1936 to 1972, at least 17 articles were published in medical journals about the Tuskegee study. During all that time, no one raised objections to the study. What social and political changes have taken place in American society in the past few decades that make it unlikely that such a study could be published today and not be widely criticized?
- Is it fair to judge the Tuskegee study as it has been judged, considering that standards were different in the 1940s than they are today? What aspects of the study-legal, ethical, medical, social-should have been done differently than they were even in 1940?
- How did the American public eventually find out about Tuskegee? What do we call this act of making others aware of unethical behavior? Why do you think no one exposed the abuses in the study until the 1970s?
- Relook at Chapter 14 in Bad Blood. How has the knowledge of Tuskegee affected the African American community at large? What other aspects of health and disease in the African American community might be affected because of this type of medical mistreatment? What could be done to calm these fears?
Then, in ONE single-space page, please complete a film review on The Deadly Deception, using the following format:
1 paragraph Abstract/Summary of film
2 paragraphs Perspective of film content.
You may reflect on any of these questions to help your perspective portion flow.
When did the U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee become unethical?
What were the clinical endpoints that should have triggered the terminated the study?
Identify the consequences of the violation of the ethical principles on future research.
How did revelations about the study change the way we conduct Public Health Research today?
Lastly : Question about Ms. Evers Boys and Ethics
1. Do you think that there was a societal acceptance of the rationale for the experimentation on untreated black males? Explain.
2. Thinking about the meaning of “informed consent,” did that happen in this study? What would they have needed to do differently?
3. Can scientists, doctors, or medical professionals become so involved in their studies or projects that they can lose objectivity? Did that happen here? At what point do you think that happened in this study?
4. Some people argue that there were racial overtones in this study, yet Eunice Rivers, a black nurse, was an important participant in the project. Are these two points compatible? Explain.
5. List at least two benefits that you can view as having been gained by the men in the experiment. List at least two harms to the men participating in this experiment.
6. Was this study in any way “good science?” Explain.
7. Is it ever possible to study a minoritized, marginalized, or specific population with good intent and with a positive outcome which benefits that group?
Research, paraphrase, and cite just the link/URL to one such study.
For example, in 2005, Prince William Co. conducted a Hispanic Needs Assessment to determine social determinants of health in this population, particularly as indicated by the presence of lack of social service and health resources. Post assessment, recommendations were made for programs and additional resources specifically targeted to benefit the growing Hispanic population.
Thus, although a specific population was studied for this assessment, the intended outcome was to positively address the void in programs.