The Tea-Room Trade and Tuskegee Syphilis Studies
Introduction
Humphreys (1975) was interested in learning about the social structure of impersonal sex, which rocked the society in public places in that era. In the 1960s, Laud Humphreys began to study me who engaged in intercourse with fellow men in public places, and restrooms of city parks. The restrooms were known as “tearooms.” Humphreys was a researcher who masqueraded as a “watch queen” who informed the men of any intruder. In so doing, Humphreys recorded more 100 sex acts. In the 1960s, homosexuality in the United States was illegal, and those involved would face the full force of the law in most states in the US. Humphreys wanted to understand the relationship between the anonymous homosexual act, and the public lives of these men. Humphreys captured crucial data for these men including their car pates. On the other hand, the Tuskegee Experiment was a public health service, which began in 1932 with the view of justifying the syphilis treatment program for the blacks in the US. The initial consisted of 399 black men with syphilis and 201 without the disease. Additionally, the study was conducted without the benefits of the patients’ informed consent. The two cases present extreme ethical concerns in society. All research works regardless of nature and type must stick to lay down ethical principles and respect for the human participants.
Integrating the Tea-Room Trade and Tuskegee Syphilis Case Studies
Issues of Ethical Principle
The global society is still in a legal battle with some judicial systems considering whether to legalize homosexuality or abandon it. The Tearoom trade presents cases of sexual intercourse among men, and this is one of the most significant ethical principles issues. During the time of this research by Humphreys, homosexuality was a crime in the United States (Humphreys, 2017). The fact that the incidences were illegal but men were still engaging in the act in public places was again an issue of ethical concern. Moreover, the immorality paradigm of homosexuality should never be exposed to the public. The societies across the world are mindful of bringing up a young generation, which will adhere to the ethical requirements. The tearoom trade was among the unethical acts, which sought to erode the good morals, and the social fabric of the young generation (Humphreys, 2017). The Tearoom study did not protect the privacy of the research subjects, and there was no honesty and openness between the researcher and the participants in the beginning. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The Tuskegee Syphilis case also presented great ethical concerns as far as health care revisions are concerned. Any medical research must be conducted by medical professionals who uphold respect for human life as a moral requirement, regardless of race or gender (Reverby, 2012). Regarding this, the sample population for any medical experiment must be informed of the purported research. The Tuskegee Experiment was done with high racial discrimination since only the blacks were targeted. Additionally, the researchers from Tuskegee did acquire the informed consents of the study sample. It unethical for any medical researchers to fail to describe in details the type of medical research (Reverby, 2012). The researchers in the Tuskegee case only told the men they were getting treatment for “bad blood,” a general, and local term for several ailments. This study also lacked the protection of the participants. The researchers also lacked honesty and openness as required in the ethical principles of research.
Strategies for Standard Ethical Research in both Cases
There was a need for an in-depth understanding of both the Tearoom case and the Tuskegee Syphilis case. Each of the cases was handled by researchers who tried to adhere to the ethical standards of research for the benefit of society. The Tearoom case was committed to unearthing the filth among men before the public social eye. In this case, Humphreys wanted to understand the underpaying relationship between the men’s public homosexual behavior, and its effect on the public. Humphreys used several strategies to conduct his research on the Tearoom case. He used mistaken identity, and false presence to gather information about the men who engaged in the homosexual acts at the city park (Humphreys, 2017).
Humphreys played the role of the lookout without informing the men he was a researcher. He went ahead to record the videos of 100 acts (Humphreys, 2017). He also took the private information of these men such as their car plates, and addresses. Humphreys would then follow these men to their residential places a year later. This time around, he changed his car, hair, and dress as a strategy to conceal his identity, and appear a total stranger to these men. Humphreys portrayed himself as a social health researcher. Using this strategy, he explicitly managed to interview these men by their sexual orientations, sexuality, marital status, and occupations (Humphreys, 2017). His plan worked because he did not identify himself as a researcher who had been following up the case from the city park. Besides, he concealed his identity and appeared as a different man in the men’s homes for interviews as a local medical researcher.
In the Tuskegee study of untreated Syphilis among the Negro also had some strategies applied by the researchers to ensure its success, which never ended successfully anyway. The various researchers responsible for the experiment issued free medical exams, free meals, and burial insurance to the men in exchange for their participation in the research. Additionally, the study was projected to take place for six months, but it went for 40 years (Reverby, 2012). The researchers seemingly lured the men into participating in the research by giving them several free offers and lying to them about the timespan of the experiment. This experiment did not meet the standards of ethical research (Reverby, 2012). The men were never given adequate treatment for their illness even though penicillin, which was the only alternative treatment in 1947 was available. The participants were not given a choice to quit the study even if the highly effective treatment was established, and none of them was informed they had the disease (Reverby, 2012). The appointment of the Ad Hoc Advisory Panel in 1972 to review the study after public outcry was the only strategy, which informed ethical research. The strategy of appointing the panel was successful in unearthing the unethical concerns in the research by reviewing the study.
The Tuskegee Study exposed the participants to several risks as revealed by the panel. The research was thus, ethically unjustified. The researchers could use several alternatives to promote the ethical standards of the study (Reverby, 2012). It all depends on the motive of the study, whether it was meant to promote the overall well-being of the Negros or inflict harm. If the researchers were to help the men with syphilis, they were supposed to be subjected to penicillin treatment, which was available. The researchers ought to have rolled out the program to other institutions, not only in Tuskegee University, which was predominantly a college for the blacks (Reverby, 2012). The researchers ought to have applied for donor funds from other federal state agencies for the treatment after the loss of the funds meant for the study. Consequently, the research should have stooped immediately instead of continuing without informing the men they would not be treated.
The Tea-Room Trade versus Tuskegee Study: Better Implementation of Research Ethics
Humphreys needed to gain the trust of the male subjects in his research to continue with the work (Humphreys, 2017). The Tea-Room to some extent hits the bar for the implementation of the research ethics. As mentioned before, the study on sexology is one of the most complicated because sometimes the participants would want to reveal their identities to the researchers (Humphreys, 2017). Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to interview such individuals. Nonetheless, the Tea-Room Trade provided a comprehensive understanding of the rules that govern research in such deviant interactions. As opposed to the Tuskegee, the Tearoom Trade study gave the time for the respondents’ views on homosexual acts. The researcher was able to record from personal levels, the information from the participants. The Tearoom study began without informed consent. The men did not know they were sampled in a research study. Otherwise, Humphreys would be in trouble (Humphreys, 2017). However, after Humphreys had acquired the plates and the addresses, there was little informed consent as he visited the houses of these men he had met before. The Tuskegee Experiment did not have the informed consent of the participants even after the funds to drive the research were finished (Humphreys, 2017). No participant was informed of the disease, and no respondent was aware of the time limits after the funds had been exhausted. The researchers were concerned about the goal of the study, which was to investigate the natural progression of syphilis in humans.
Similarities and Differences: The Tea-Room Trade versus Tuskegee Study
Similarities
Both studies did not have the informed consent of the participants. As a result, bot the researchers violated the requirements of ethical research. Worth noting is that both the experiments only had male participants due to the nature of the underlying research, and thus, were not integrative as required in ethical research. Both researchers used deception. Humphreys used false pretense, and acted as a voyeur to capture the videos of the men who emerged in the unruly act of homosexual. Similarly, the researchers at Tuskegee University deceived the participants to engage in clinical research without telling them they were suffering from syphilis. Even after the discovery of penicillin as the tested, and proven cure for the disease, the researchers did not treat any of the Negro men arguing they needed the continuity of the research. Both the research approaches were heavily criticized by various researchers, and authorities. Humphrey’s data collection methods were heavily criticized. Some mentioned the methods were too controversial, and questioned whether a researcher should be permitted to collect such sensitive data under false pretense. Similar to the Tuskegee study, the Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs responded to the public outcry about the Tuskegee experiment. The study was then rendered unethical, and the panel advised for its immediate closure in 1973.
Differences
The Tuskegee and the Tearoom studies differ on the basis of their importance to the ethical society. The Tearoom study was sexology research, which aimed at establishing the interrelationship between men’s anonymous homosexual acts and their public lives. The research differs from the Tuskegee because it involved the practice of homosexuality; high order immorality in society. On the other hand, the Tuskegee experiment was clinical research. Concerning this, the study aimed at understanding the natural progression of syphilis in humans. Being clinical research, the study gathered 600 male participants from the Tuskegee University both infected, and those not infected for purposes of understanding the nature of the disease progression. In contrast, the Tearoom Trade was sociological research, which had only 50 male participants.
The two studies also differ in the method of data collection. Humphreys used video recording as the main data collection method without the consent of the 50 men who engaged in the act. On the other hand, the Tuskegee experiment mainly aimed at the focus groups. Humphreys had to use a false pretext to gather the required data. The researchers of the Tuskegee Study did not use a false pretext. They were well-known clinicians and professionals from the Public Health Service. Additionally, the Tuskegee research was conducted by a group of researchers as opposed to the Tearoom case which was only conducted by Humphreys. After researchers questioned the controversial methods Humphreys used in data collection, there were just heated responses. For the case of the Tuskegee, the opponents twined the case to a legal battle. In 1973, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of the families of the participants where close to 10 million out-of-court settlement was reached.
Consequences of the Cases
The Tuskegee Syphilis Case
The Tuskegee Syphilis case impacted on the political class of the United States. This followed the White House response released in May 1997 (Reverby, 2012). President Bill Clinton in his public apology address to the nation recognizes the importance of not forgetting such events since the participants were used without their consent. The president also regretted the fact that the government failed to protect the rights of the citizens (Reverby, 2012). The Tuskegee case has put research on bad light for the minority populations in America because the study intentionally withheld treatment for 399 poor African Americans from Alabama (Reverby, 2012). Close to a quarter of the participants died while the survivors became blind, and crippled. The Tuskegee study had a lot of mistakes and errors, which would expose the researchers to several problems. Currently, the ethical concerns for any clinical research must be addressed by the Institutional Review Boards, which read the research protocols, and decide whether they meet the set standards.
Tearoom Trade Case
The Tearoom Trade Case plunged Humphreys into answering several ethical questions. As mentioned before, many researchers questioned the ethical considerations of his data collection techniques. Sexology research is cumbersome to handle, and Humphreys would risk jail terms if his notes were seized and the men identified. The study by Humphreys elicited substantial controversy due to the deep, and sensitive details concerning the subjects of his research. The tremendous consequences might increase because he went ahead to capture the details of their cars and personal addresses without their consent. The men would suffer persistent stigmatization, which would destroy their families, occupations, and their sexual life in general.
Summary and Conclusion
Ethical consideration in any research work is paramount, and the researchers must adhere to it. Research proposals must be thoroughly scrutinized for amicable ethical concerns before the researchers proceed to the field. Any violation must be met with full force of the law and the researcher or the agency disbanded. The Tuskegee and the Tearoom cases present research works, which lack ethical considerations from both the aspect of the participants and the researcher. Even though homosexuality is wrong in our societies, the researchers of sexology should take care not to violate any of their rights as humans. The clinical researchers must also consider respect for human participants. Human participants are delicate and should be handled carefully.
The researchers of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study failed to uphold respect for humanity. The consequences had more profound negative impacts on the minority population in America. The study was assumed to be targeting the blacks when the original intended purpose was different. As a call to action, the US government is keen on revenging any of such occurrences in the future by setting everlasting ethical standards for research. This paper has illustrated in the deep critical analysis the differences and similarities between the two cases. As the researchers look forward to protecting the rights of the participants, it is important to consider that most sociological research has the lives of the researchers at stake.
References
Humphreys, L. (2017). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Routledge.
Reverby, S. M. (Ed.). (2012). Tuskegee’s truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee syphilis study. UNC Press Books.