Willowbrook hepatitis experiment was conducted in the 1950s and lasted for up to 15 years. Hepatitis had emerged as a significant health problem affecting many people at the time. The leading researcher, Dr. Krugman, had believed that the new students at Willowbrook state school would be the best test subjects. Willowbrook state school was a school for mentally disabled children. In the study, over 700 participants were used as test subjects. The 700 mentally disabled students were divided into two categories ( Anekwe, 2014 ). The first group involved the children who got admission to the school. In this group, the section was injected with antibodies, and their reaction monitored. The second group included the newly admitted students at the school. All these children received protective antibodies, and a section intentionally injected with the hepatitis virus from the sick students. The symptoms were then observed to conclude the forms of hepatitis, which are A and B.
Unethical Issues in the Study
American Psychological Association has set principles that guide the researchers when researching to avoid ethical pitfalls. These guidelines provide the most ethical ways to select participants. For example, the principle of informed consent is essential guidance for conducting ethical research. The participants in the study must be informed about the study, the consequences it will have, and the benefits they will get from it. They have the right to choose whether to take part in the research or not. East (2018 ) argues that the major ethical issues that arose in the Willowbrook experiment include “lack of informed consent, the vulnerability of the test subjects to harm, and the non-therapeutic nature of the experiment.”
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Lack of Informed Consent
This ethical principle requires that participants voluntarily take part in the study. They need to be aware of all the risks and benefits of the study before they decide to take part in it. According to the APA's code of ethics, the researchers should inform the participants of the purpose of the research, the risks, and benefits that will result from the study ( East, 2018 ). The participants have the right to either accept or decline without being subjected to coercion or use of force. The major ethical issue that arises with the Willowbrook hepatitis study is the recruitment of its participants. The study used mentally disabled children as subjects. First, children who are mentally disabled are unable to make an informed decision about an issue. The mental state puts them in a vulnerable situation where they cannot understand the purpose or risks of the study. One of the ethical pitfalls for the research was failing to use adults instead of children in the study. The institution had more than 1000 adult workers who the study could use, but instead, the study used the children ( Goodwin, 2016 ). Children are less likely to understand the study's purpose and risks, which results in a violation of the right to consent
Besides, mentally disabled children are unable to have informed consent about the risks and aims of the study. The disabled children were not aware of the purose and risks of the study because they were not told, and also due to their vulnerable mental state ( Addessi, 2017 ). This reason is that the children who are mentally ill cannot fully understand the risks of participating in a study. By doing this, the researchers did not respect the right to consent to the children. Instead, they took advantage of their vulnerable situation. What further made the study more unethical was the deceptive and coercive manner in which the right to consent of the parents was acquired. The main school was closed for any new admission due to overcrowding. However, the entry of new children came with a precondition. They had to take part in the study. The parents were unduly induced to provide consent by being told that the test was going to have no harmful effects on their children. The major issue that had raised questions was that parents had little choice over whether they should allow their children to participate in the research. Participation in the study was the only option available for the new children to get admission in the school. This way of seeking consent violated the rights of the parents to make any other choice because they lacked any other alternative ( Addessi, 2017 ). It was, therefore, unethical, unfair lack of respect to use the vulnerable population for the study and deliberately infect them with a disease without knowing the risks of its exposure.
The vulnerability of the Test Subjects to Harm
A research process should protect the participants from any harm that may arise from the study. The participants should not be in a vulnerable situation that could further cause harm to them. In the hepatitis study, the participants were not protected from the harm by the researchers. Instead, the healthy participants received deliberate injection with the virus ( Goodwin, 2016 ). The children were more likely to be infected during their stay at the Willowbrook. Those who were deliberately injected by the disease developed various symptoms such as yellowing of the skin, swollen liver, vomiting, and loss of appetite. The signs were then used to group hepatitis into two categories as A and B. It is unethical to expose vulnerable children to a test that is more likely to harm them.
The beneficence principle examines the cost-benefit analysis of the research. Intentional infection of an individual with an infectious virus as part of a research study is considered unethical and unacceptable. By intentionally infecting healthy children with the disease, the researchers exposed them to more harm than benefits. There were minimal efforts put in place to protect the children from any harm to the study, which happened even as the participants remained unaware of any risks the study was subjecting them. Secondly, research conducted to benefit other people rather than the participants is unethical. The participants of the study should be the first and primary beneficiaries of the study ( East, 2016 ). The Willowbrook hepatitis study was unethical because it never meant to benefit the participants. The aim was to develop a drug that could prevent the rising cases of infectious disease. The children were not part of the beneficiaries of the study. It is ethically wrong to experiment on children who are mentally disabled at a time when they are not going to benefit from such a study. While the use of minors in a study remains morally wrong, exemptions can only apply in cases where the study should benefit the child. The anticipated benefit should also outdo the risks that could arise. However, this was never the case in the Willowbrook hepatitis study. Neither were the participants meant to benefit from the study, nor were the benefits more than the harm.
Unsanitary Environment
The study was conducted in an environment that further exposed them to more risks of acquiring hepatitis. Due to the unsanitary living conditions, it became virtually inevitable that these children would contract hepatitis. A study into the institution's scandal revealed the deplorable living conditions, overcrowding, and poor sanitary environment ( Hardicre, 2014 ). Due to the poor living conditions and overcrowding, healthy children were at risk of contracting the disease. After the study, many children became carriers leading to more stigmatization. They were later integrated into public schools, further exposing more risks to the whole research process. The lead researcher Dr. Krugman had provided misleading information about the study. He said that the anticipated vaccine to be developed was going to have more benefits than the minor harms to the children. He also stated that the children would be placed in a well-spaced united where they would be isolated from any exposure to other infectious diseases. However, all these emerged as mere deceit as they never occurred.
The research was a great addition to the field of medicine as it added more knowledge on the difference between hepatitis A and B. The results of this study would later be used to develop a vaccine that protected the members of the public from the risks of this infectious disease. The research is beneficial to the greater society as a whole as it is the means of reducing the number of hepatitis infections to the public. However, the unethical way in which the research ran came as a cost to the participants. The costs came in the form of intentional infection by the disease and further risks of stigmatization that they experienced. Despite the significance of the study to the field of medicine, it failed to adhere to the ethical principles leading to daring risks to the participants.
Personal Experience
Mr. Smith had been adding weight more often and was worried about his health. Smith was trying to adopt behavioural change and dietary measures as a way to regulate his body weight. Ast at the time, his Body Mass Index had shown that he was overweight and needed to reduce some weight. Eager to burn out some calories, Smith saw an advert of a product promising to burn more calories and improve overall health. The advert was that of New Balance, a Boston-based sneaker company selling toning shoes (" HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media," 2020 ). In the advert, the company has stated that the toning walking shoes were capable of burning more calories and improving human health.
The New Balance's shoes were introduced in 2010 and marketed as stylish sneaker shoes that offered added fitness advantage. Initially sold at $100, the shoes were advertised as a "true balance and rock and tone lines which could activate and lower the body muscles with soles that made it stay balanced as if one was running on sand" (" Lawsuit accuses New Balance of false walking shoe ads," 2020 ). The shoes were advertised as "hidden beauty secret," as it promised the customers that they would burn 8% more calories compared to the normal sneakers. The shoes targeted people who wanted physical fitness and improved health.
Smith was induced by the advert on sneaker's ability to burn calories. As he was determined to lose weight and stay healthy, he relied on the advert and bought the New Balance sneakers. He hoped that he would burn 8% more calories as had been presented in the company's advert. Smith willingly paid $100 for the toning shoes and hoped that he had gotten a solution to his problem. He had quitted his dietary plan and adopted his normal lifestyle, hoping to get help from the product. After four months of using the shoes, he realized one change, he was adding weight. His body mass index was above normal, and he had added 10 kilograms in four months. At this stage, he started questioning the truth in the advert that the sneakers help burn calories. On social media, Smith saw several people complaining of the same product's failure to work as had been advertised.
An investigation into the advertisement scandal by New Balance found that the company used deceptive measures to persuade the customers to by the product. The results show that wearing toning shoes had no additional activation to the muscles and hamstring and did not burn additional calories as alleged (" HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media," 2020 ). Instead, scientists found that wearing toning shoes could lead to high risks of injury compared to regular sneakers. Based on this information, it was clear that New Balance had provided misleading and deceptive information while advertising its product. It also failed to provide possible harmful effects of its products to the users. The study used misleading information purposefully to deceive the customer into buying the product with the expectation that it will provide the mentioned benefits.
Deceptive and misleading advertisement remains one of the major ethical issues in the business world. The deliberate provision of deceptive information to dupe people into buying a particular product is considered an unethical practice. Advertisers need to uphold high moral values and provide correct information about their products to the users. The perceived benefits of using a product should not be exaggerated. Alternatively, any harm that can result from using the product should be disclosed to the customers to enhance transparency. The customers have the legal and ethical right to know what they are buying. The dominant theme of ethical advertising is rooted in the theme of truthfulness and personal ethics. Even though profit motives drive adverts, they need to take into consideration the welfare of the customers. There is, therefore, a need for firms to remain truthful in the information they present to the customers to avoid ethical pitfalls.
Class Content
The second chapter of Myers & Hansen (2011) addresses the issue of research ethics in psychology. According to Myers & Hansen (2011), ethical research practices help in the identification of the actions that are considered good or bad and determine the principles on which to make the most ethical decisions. Therefore, the researcher needs to uphold high standards of ethical values in research. The role of the institutional review board in scientific research is to ensure the safety of the research participants. The goal is to determine whether research increases the risks of harm to the participants. Ethical research is one that minimizes the risks of harm and maximizes the benefits. Before taking research, the researchers must thus assess the degree of risks to which the participants are exposed and take the necessary measures to minimize such risks. The risk-benefit analysis is required to compare the harms and benefits of the study. A study should only proceed if the benefits are more than the risks.
The Belmont Report sets three major principles that guide the ethical practices in research. These include respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Respect for persons is based on the need to have informed consent before taking part in a study ( Myers & Hansen, 2011 ). The participants in a study must have access to all information regarding the study, including the risks. Based on this information, they should make informed decisions without being coerced. Inducing people into a study without providing all the information they require amounts to unethical practices. The beneficence principle is based on the need to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits of participating in research. The basis for this principle is conducting a risk-benefit analysis. Justice should provide fairness on both the burden and benefits of the research.
The American Psychological Association guidelines provide psychologists with the direction to follow to remain ethical in research. The use of deception to minimize the participants' perception of risks in the study is considered unethical conduct. It violates the principle of the right to consent ( Myers & Hansen, 2011 ). Participants have the right to accept, reject, or withdraw from the study at their will. The participants also have the right to receive debriefing, which entails full disclosure of all the information about the study. The full disclosure right requires that the researchers provide the participants with the true nature and purpose of the study. Also, the participants have the right to anonymity and confidentiality. The data is collected by assigning a code to the participants without using their names to achieve anonymity. The data obtained should be protected from unauthorized access to ensure confidentiality. Upholding these rights are necessary to ensure that research is ethical and that the participants are protected.
Scientific research also uses animals as subjects for the study. In such cases, animal welfare remains a key area of ethical consideration. The animals used in the research need to be treated with care and in a humane way. Animals have the same rights and values as a human. The researchers must, therefore, adopt the alternative that minimizes the risks and harm to the animals used as subjects in research. Research practices that fail to put into consideration the welfare of the animals are unethical. Another key area of ethical consideration is scientific fraud, which involves fabricating data to provide false information ( Myers & Hansen, 2011 ). Certain motivation factors can push researchers to commit fraud. However, scientific fraud is one of the most unacceptable and unethical conduct. Scientific researchers are trusted to provide reliable data that can help solve various problems. Engaging in scientific fraud is thus a violation of trust and loss of reputation.
Conclusion
Ethical practices in scientific research remain one of the most controversial areas in research. Researchers are required to adhere to the APA's ethical principles while conducting research. The ethical concern majorly arises in the selection of participants for the study. The researchers need to rely on the principles of informed consent, beneficence, and justice to ensure ethical research practices. Informed consent discloses all the information about the research, including risks and purpose. The beneficence principle is concerned with comparing the benefit with the cost while justice relates to creating fairness between the benefits and burden. Willowbrook hepatitis study remains one of the most unethical research in the history of a medical study. The study violated all the APA principles in its study. There was no informed consent because the mentally disabled children could not understand the risks and purpose of the study. The risks of harm for participating in the study were more than the benefits, thus violating the beneficence principle. Also, the study used a vulnerable population, induced parents to make informed consent, and subjected the participants to the unsanitary environment.
References
Addessi, K. S. (2017). How the Willowbrook Consent Decree Has Influenced Contemporary Advocacy of Individuals with Disabilities.
Anekwe, O. N. (2014). Unheard Voices of Willowbrook: A Bioethics Education Perspective on New York's Infamous State School, 1947− 1987. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine: An International Journal , 5 (2).
East, C. (2018). How Clinical Research Should Never Have Been Done: Ethical Measures for Protection and Respect. In Developing a Successful Clinical Research Program (pp. 11-18). Springer, Cham.
Goodwin, M. (2016). Vulnerable subjects: why does informed consent matter?. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 44 (3), 371-380.
Hardicre, J. (2014). An overview of research ethics and learning from the past. British Journal of Nursing , 23 (9), 483-486.
Hatala Experimental Psychology - Chapter 2 - Myers & Hansen. (2020). Retrieved 20 April 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKWc4ACOo_Q
HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media. (2020). Retrieved 20 April 2020, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-balance-toning-shoe-settlement_n_1839537
Lawsuit accuses New Balance of false walking shoe ads. (2020). Retrieved 20 April 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shoes-lawsuit/lawsuit-accuses-new-balance-of-false-walking-shoe-ads-idUSTRE7035TP20110104
Myers, A., & Hansen, C. H. (2011). Experimental psychology . Cengage Learning.
