“We can be blamed for being duped, but nobody ever sat us down and explained what the tests were all about and what the complications were,” Robert Garrison, age 54, a former Oregon inmate who received repeated radiation exposures over several weeks in the late 1960s reveals to reporters. “But worst of all is the deceit that we’ve been subjected to afterwards. I can’t even get a doctor to diagnose my problems, let alone give me treatment for them. I shouldn’t have to scream to get some kind of results. I’m a human being too” (Lee, 1994, para. 14).
A former soldier was told that participating in the experiment was a way to serve his country. He believed them (Lee, 1994).
As stated by Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012), Webster’s New World dictionary defines ethical as “conforming to the standards of conduct of a given profession or group” (p. 61).
In the mid 1960’s, there were few rules and regulations that restricted researchers with medical questions from designing experiments, considering the benefits of the experimentations on the general population. John Fletcher, a professor of biomedical ethics at the University of Virginia Medical School states that what was considered to be acceptable at this period of time, was subjecting prisoners and other minority groups to risks that were not imposed on the general populations (Lee, 1994). Prisoners were considered to be “less human” or “less important” than the general population.
Jessica Mitford, a reporter, believes that prisoners are not well placed to make voluntary decisions and that should have been looked at further.
Richards stated (n.d.) The “ideals of comprehension, evaluation, and decision on part of prisoners were seldom attained in practice.” (para.11)
Dr. Heller and partner, were charged with oversight at both the federal and state levels that their experiments did not live up to the standards that were set for their research. The balancing of risks and benefits, subject selection criteria, and the quality of informed consent are all ethical considerations to be discussed (Richards, n.d).
Physical harm
The treatment participants were subjected to unsafe and harmful procedures/ experiments. They were to provide frequent urine and semen samples and subjected to frequent biopsies. Semen samples were collected through masturbation, raising an ethical question by churches on fair and just treatment. It was possible that the dose of radiation given to the male participants could have been fatal. Some of the prisoners were exposed to as much as 640 rads, a potentially fatal amount if spread all throughout the body. Also, it was highly possible that the dose of radiation could cause damage to the chromosomes in the fells of a man’s testicles, causing infertility, raise the risk of testicular cancer, and raise the chances that his children will have birth defects. A handful of participants who have survived the radiation experiments have come forth in later years, have released information concerning their medical problems including: prostate cancer, loss of vision and vascular disease, groin pains, burning feeling for days, lumps, and persistent rashes.
Incentives
The prisoners who agreed to participate in the study were compensated with minimal money and the promise of being considered for parole. They received small stipend and other cash payments for undergoing several tests. They received 25 cents a day (equaling $5.25 per month), 25 dollars for each biopsy, and a bonus ($25) for being vasectomized at the end of the study. One ethical question that has been raised, is: were the prisoners coerced through monetary offers?
Failure to provide medical treatments
Some prisoners have come forth and reported the feeling of being used as “guinea pigs” after the lack of adequate medical follow ups that were promised by researchers (Lee, 1994, para. 13). It was communicated through the use of the consent forms that those prisoners choosing to participate in the study that the follow up care would be provided following the conclusion of the study. The effects of the medical follow ups were either non- existent or not successful. Many reporters have mentioned this being an exploitation of inmates.
Prior review
A committee meeting never took place to discuss the ethical considerations and other considerations of the Oregon State Prison Study (Richards, n.d). The study was not approved in advance by an independent review board (Lee, 1994).
Informed consent
Some of the former inmates said they were unaware of the long-term risks associated with the procedures they were subjected to (Lee, 1994). The available documentary evidence was not consistent and raised questions in later years of deception including: inconsistency on being informed of pain, language not understood by prisoners, risks not being explained to their fullest, and giving vague references. Lack of education and comprehension of prisoners in this time period, led to taking advantage during research studies of this decade. Not all inmates understood formal language used and the pain that came with the biopsies or the long- term effects. Some inmates claim they were never told in clear language. When asked for the potential of “bad effects”, Heller stated “one chance in a million. I didn’t want to frighten them so I said tumor. I may have on occasion said cancer” (Richards, n.d, para. 7). He gave vague references to the possibilities of cancer, considering there was no reliable human information at the time of the study explaining long term effects of organ specific exposure to radiation (Richards, n.d). Also risks of the study were placed on the back of the form while the inmates signature was required on the front and nowhere on the consent form did it mention the possibility of leaving the study. The inmates were not fully aware of their rights as “volunteers”. Bibeau, a former soldier and inmate of the study stated, “How can you have informed consent if you don’t know what’s happening to you” (Lee, 1994, para. 28).
According to Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012): “It is a fundamental responsibility of every researcher to do all in his or her power to ensure that participants in a research study are protected from physical or psychological harm, discomfort, or danger that may arise due to research procedures. This is perhaps the most important ethical decision of all” (p.63).
According to Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012): “Perhaps the most serious problem involving deception is what is done to the reputation of the scientific community. In general, when people begin to think of scientists and researchers as liars, or as individuals who misinterpret what they are about, the overall image of science suffers. Fewer and fewer people are willing to participate in research investigations today because of this perception. As a result, the search for reliable knowledge about our world may be impeded” (p. 65).
“We can be blamed for being duped, but nobody ever sat us down and explained what the tests were all about and what the complications were,” Robert Garrison, age 54, a former Oregon inmate who received repeated radiation exposures over several weeks in the late 1960s reveals to reporters. “But worst of all is the deceit that we’ve been subjected to afterwards. I can’t even get a doctor to diagnose my problems, let alone give me treatment for them. I shouldn’t have to scream to get some kind of results. I’m a human being too” (Lee, 1994, para. 14).
A former soldier was told that participating in the experiment was a way to serve his country. He believed them (Lee, 1994).
As stated by Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012), Webster’s New World dictionary defines ethical as “conforming to the standards of conduct of a given profession or group” (p. 61).
In the mid 1960’s, there were few rules and regulations that restricted researchers with medical questions from designing experiments, considering the benefits of the experimentations on the general population. John Fletcher, a professor of biomedical ethics at the University of Virginia Medical School states that what was considered to be acceptable at this period of time, was subjecting prisoners and other minority groups to risks that were not imposed on the general populations (Lee, 1994). Prisoners were considered to be “less human” or “less important” than the general population.
Jessica Mitford, a reporter, believes that prisoners are not well placed to make voluntary decisions and that should have been looked at further.
Richards stated (n.d.) The “ideals of comprehension, evaluation, and decision on part of prisoners were seldom attained in practice.” (para.11)
Dr. Heller and partner, were charged with oversight at both the federal and state levels that their experiments did not live up to the standards that were set for their research. The balancing of risks and benefits, subject selection criteria, and the quality of informed consent are all ethical considerations to be discussed (Richards, n.d).
- Physical harm
The treatment participants were subjected to unsafe and harmful procedures/ experiments. They were to provide frequent urine and semen samples and subjected to frequent biopsies. Semen samples were collected through masturbation, raising an ethical question by churches on fair and just treatment. It was possible that the dose of radiation given to the male participants could have been fatal. Some of the prisoners were exposed to as much as 640 rads, a potentially fatal amount if spread all throughout the body. Also, it was highly possible that the dose of radiation could cause damage to the chromosomes in the fells of a man’s testicles, causing infertility, raise the risk of testicular cancer, and raise the chances that his children will have birth defects. A handful of participants who have survived the radiation experiments have come forth in later years, have released information concerning their medical problems including: prostate cancer, loss of vision and vascular disease, groin pains, burning feeling for days, lumps, and persistent rashes.- Incentives
The prisoners who agreed to participate in the study were compensated with minimal money and the promise of being considered for parole. They received small stipend and other cash payments for undergoing several tests. They received 25 cents a day (equaling $5.25 per month), 25 dollars for each biopsy, and a bonus ($25) for being vasectomized at the end of the study. One ethical question that has been raised, is: were the prisoners coerced through monetary offers?- Failure to provide medical treatments
Some prisoners have come forth and reported the feeling of being used as “guinea pigs” after the lack of adequate medical follow ups that were promised by researchers (Lee, 1994, para. 13). It was communicated through the use of the consent forms that those prisoners choosing to participate in the study that the follow up care would be provided following the conclusion of the study. The effects of the medical follow ups were either non- existent or not successful. Many reporters have mentioned this being an exploitation of inmates.- Prior review
A committee meeting never took place to discuss the ethical considerations and other considerations of the Oregon State Prison Study (Richards, n.d). The study was not approved in advance by an independent review board (Lee, 1994).- Informed consent
Some of the former inmates said they were unaware of the long-term risks associated with the procedures they were subjected to (Lee, 1994). The available documentary evidence was not consistent and raised questions in later years of deception including: inconsistency on being informed of pain, language not understood by prisoners, risks not being explained to their fullest, and giving vague references. Lack of education and comprehension of prisoners in this time period, led to taking advantage during research studies of this decade. Not all inmates understood formal language used and the pain that came with the biopsies or the long- term effects. Some inmates claim they were never told in clear language. When asked for the potential of “bad effects”, Heller stated “one chance in a million. I didn’t want to frighten them so I said tumor. I may have on occasion said cancer” (Richards, n.d, para. 7). He gave vague references to the possibilities of cancer, considering there was no reliable human information at the time of the study explaining long term effects of organ specific exposure to radiation (Richards, n.d). Also risks of the study were placed on the back of the form while the inmates signature was required on the front and nowhere on the consent form did it mention the possibility of leaving the study. The inmates were not fully aware of their rights as “volunteers”. Bibeau, a former soldier and inmate of the study stated, “How can you have informed consent if you don’t know what’s happening to you” (Lee, 1994, para. 28).According to Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012): “It is a fundamental responsibility of every researcher to do all in his or her power to ensure that participants in a research study are protected from physical or psychological harm, discomfort, or danger that may arise due to research procedures. This is perhaps the most important ethical decision of all” (p.63).
According to Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012): “Perhaps the most serious problem involving deception is what is done to the reputation of the scientific community. In general, when people begin to think of scientists and researchers as liars, or as individuals who misinterpret what they are about, the overall image of science suffers. Fewer and fewer people are willing to participate in research investigations today because of this perception. As a result, the search for reliable knowledge about our world may be impeded” (p. 65).