A Bioethical Comparison
Through a basic knowledge of the events that unfolded at Chelmsford hospital, it is only too easy to draw rash comparisons between the actions of Dr. Harry Bailey and other historical figures such as Josef Mengele that live in infamy for the medical atrocities they committed against humanity. Public perception of the media’s portrayal of the treatments undertaken at Chelmsford by no means stand as a adequate measure for the ethical comparison and historical contextualization of Bailey and the treatments undertaken at Chelmsford Hospital.
Bioethics is commonly viewed as the debate of ethics regarding advances in biology and medicine; it concerns itself with not only the professionals immediately involved and their patients, but of the wellbeing of human society at large (Lambert 1984). Thus, when analyzing and comparing contentious issues of ethics such that are associated with Chelmsford hospital we must take a holistic view of the issue, identifying not only how it affects those immediately implicated with the treatment but also how the treatment stand to affect society as a whole.
The following comparisons drawn in reference to Chelmsford are thus drawn not on pure emotion of the outcomes of the treatments of deep sleep therapy and the associated treatments undertaken at Chelmsford but based on a holistic moral comparison and the implications the issue had on society as a whole. The declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding research in association with the medical treatment of human beings, originally drafted in 1975. This continually evolving declaration in many ways encapsulates the moral issues surrounding the events undergone at the Chelmsford Mental Hospital, as well as comparative medical trials the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and the National Women’s Hospital in Auckland inquiries into cervical cancer.
The declaration of Helsinki distinguishes between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research in identifying an individual’s right to make informed decisions (Article 20,21,22) regarding participation both initially and during the course of the research. It continues to outline the moral responsibility of the researchers stating, the investigator’s duty is solely to the patient (article 5), and while there is always a need for research (article 6), the subject’s welfare must always take precedence over the interests of society(Declaration of Helsinki 1975). It is this distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research that allows us to analyze and make valid comparisons between the medical trials of Chelmsford, the Tuskegee syphilis trial and the cervical cancer inquiry.
The analysis of Deep Sleep Therapy and the subsequent therapies administered at Chelmsford hospital by the principles outlined in the Helsinki declaration highlights just how perverse and morally inept the treatments really were. Throughout the medical “trial” deep sleep therapy was administered for almost everything, for medical issues ranging from pre-menstrual tension to schizophrenia (Jones 1990). This indiscriminant administering of treatment coupled with the fact that no consent was sought for many of the treatments undertaken and that over 25 patients died as a result of the treatments gives weight to the argument that the treatments undertaken by Dr. Harry Bailey and his team were purely based on medical research purposes and offered no therapeutic benefits whatsoever to the patients.
In a comparison that draws many ethical parallels with the treatments at Chelmsford we can look at the moral implications associated with both the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment conducted between 1932 and 1972 as well as the Cervical Cancer inquiry conducted at Auckland’s National Women’s Hospital between the years of 1966 to 1976. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment was sickeningly categorized as an, “unparalleled opportunity” in examining, “the effect of untreated syphilis on the human economy”(Kenny 1972) in which a target population of 600 African-American men infected with syphilis were studied to view the natural progression of the disease. None of the subjects enrolled in the study were provided with adequate treatment, to the extent where the subjects were actively prevented from seeking treatment outside the study (Kenny 1972). The victims of the experiment were not confined to those men who died of the illness but also the wives and children who later contracted the disease.
The Cervical Cancer Inquiry undertaken at the National Women’s Hospital in Auckland is a reported research study that aimed to map the natural history of carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the cervix by withholding conventional treatment from a study group of patients. The research project was brought to light in an expository article, “An Unfortunate Experiment” published in 1987. The article proposed that the women who all presented with CIS of the cervix were split into two distinct groups, one of which was treated conventionally and the other received an initial diagnostic biopsy but not complete cancer removal. The research showed that of the women who received conventional treatment only 1.5% developed invasive cancer, whilst the target group who received an altered treatment had rates of contracting invasive cancer of over 22% (Jones 1990).
Similarly to the Treatments undertaken at Chelmsford; the Tuskegee Experiment and the Cervical Cancer Inquiry highlight the distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research and raises the controversial ethical question, does the medical benefit of many have greater importance than the suffering of few? Tuskegee and the Cervical Cancer inquiry differed from Chelmsford in that they were carried out in a demeanor of inaction rather than the application of controversial treatment. However, the implications of all three cases were ultimately the same, the boundaries of modern medicine were pushed beyond their limits through a façade of therapeutic research; in an attempt to advance the wellbeing of an entire population. Whilst the method of achieving this goal of improving medical knowledge and our ability to treat disease and disorder were misguided, it was not a devious sense of selfishness that lead to these experiments but a sense of altruism for all humanity.
Through a basic knowledge of the events that unfolded at Chelmsford hospital, it is only too easy to draw rash comparisons between the actions of Dr. Harry Bailey and other historical figures such as Josef Mengele that live in infamy for the medical atrocities they committed against humanity. Public perception of the media’s portrayal of the treatments undertaken at Chelmsford by no means stand as a adequate measure for the ethical comparison and historical contextualization of Bailey and the treatments undertaken at Chelmsford Hospital.
Bioethics is commonly viewed as the debate of ethics regarding advances in biology and medicine; it concerns itself with not only the professionals immediately involved and their patients, but of the wellbeing of human society at large (Lambert 1984). Thus, when analyzing and comparing contentious issues of ethics such that are associated with Chelmsford hospital we must take a holistic view of the issue, identifying not only how it affects those immediately implicated with the treatment but also how the treatment stand to affect society as a whole.
The following comparisons drawn in reference to Chelmsford are thus drawn not on pure emotion of the outcomes of the treatments of deep sleep therapy and the associated treatments undertaken at Chelmsford but based on a holistic moral comparison and the implications the issue had on society as a whole. The declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding research in association with the medical treatment of human beings, originally drafted in 1975. This continually evolving declaration in many ways encapsulates the moral issues surrounding the events undergone at the Chelmsford Mental Hospital, as well as comparative medical trials the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and the National Women’s Hospital in Auckland inquiries into cervical cancer.
The declaration of Helsinki distinguishes between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research in identifying an individual’s right to make informed decisions (Article 20,21,22) regarding participation both initially and during the course of the research. It continues to outline the moral responsibility of the researchers stating, the investigator’s duty is solely to the patient (article 5), and while there is always a need for research (article 6), the subject’s welfare must always take precedence over the interests of society(Declaration of Helsinki 1975). It is this distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research that allows us to analyze and make valid comparisons between the medical trials of Chelmsford, the Tuskegee syphilis trial and the cervical cancer inquiry.
The analysis of Deep Sleep Therapy and the subsequent therapies administered at Chelmsford hospital by the principles outlined in the Helsinki declaration highlights just how perverse and morally inept the treatments really were. Throughout the medical “trial” deep sleep therapy was administered for almost everything, for medical issues ranging from pre-menstrual tension to schizophrenia (Jones 1990). This indiscriminant administering of treatment coupled with the fact that no consent was sought for many of the treatments undertaken and that over 25 patients died as a result of the treatments gives weight to the argument that the treatments undertaken by Dr. Harry Bailey and his team were purely based on medical research purposes and offered no therapeutic benefits whatsoever to the patients.
In a comparison that draws many ethical parallels with the treatments at Chelmsford we can look at the moral implications associated with both the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment conducted between 1932 and 1972 as well as the Cervical Cancer inquiry conducted at Auckland’s National Women’s Hospital between the years of 1966 to 1976. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment was sickeningly categorized as an, “unparalleled opportunity” in examining, “the effect of untreated syphilis on the human economy”(Kenny 1972) in which a target population of 600 African-American men infected with syphilis were studied to view the natural progression of the disease. None of the subjects enrolled in the study were provided with adequate treatment, to the extent where the subjects were actively prevented from seeking treatment outside the study (Kenny 1972). The victims of the experiment were not confined to those men who died of the illness but also the wives and children who later contracted the disease.
The Cervical Cancer Inquiry undertaken at the National Women’s Hospital in Auckland is a reported research study that aimed to map the natural history of carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the cervix by withholding conventional treatment from a study group of patients. The research project was brought to light in an expository article, “An Unfortunate Experiment” published in 1987. The article proposed that the women who all presented with CIS of the cervix were split into two distinct groups, one of which was treated conventionally and the other received an initial diagnostic biopsy but not complete cancer removal. The research showed that of the women who received conventional treatment only 1.5% developed invasive cancer, whilst the target group who received an altered treatment had rates of contracting invasive cancer of over 22% (Jones 1990).
Similarly to the Treatments undertaken at Chelmsford; the Tuskegee Experiment and the Cervical Cancer Inquiry highlight the distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research and raises the controversial ethical question, does the medical benefit of many have greater importance than the suffering of few? Tuskegee and the Cervical Cancer inquiry differed from Chelmsford in that they were carried out in a demeanor of inaction rather than the application of controversial treatment. However, the implications of all three cases were ultimately the same, the boundaries of modern medicine were pushed beyond their limits through a façade of therapeutic research; in an attempt to advance the wellbeing of an entire population. Whilst the method of achieving this goal of improving medical knowledge and our ability to treat disease and disorder were misguided, it was not a devious sense of selfishness that lead to these experiments but a sense of altruism for all humanity.
