Let me set the stage: it was 1956 in Britain and, like most of Europe, mass hysteria had already set in imagining the possibility of the Soviet Union possessing nuclear weapons. Of course, this type of fear often leads to irrational thinking, which certainly can be said of the following “experiment.”
A group of British sailors set out towards Australia on a somewhat vague mission; they were told that they would witness atomic bomb explosions. Now notice the word “witness”—they were to be observing from afar. Little did they know what the British navy had in store for them. Upon arriving, the sailors had little time to “observe.” The ships were told to sail through the cloud that remained following the atomic bomb explosion. Possibly for the sake of humor, the sailors were offered sunglasses to wear for this journey through the radioactive material. Not surprisingly, numerous deleterious health effects were incurred including hair loss and in some cases, death. Almost half of the men who survived developed cancer in their later years.
As one man stated, “We were used as guinea pigs. No one sought our permission to use us in an experiment and we did not volunteer.” However, it is now known that the sailors were informed of the fact that they would not just be “observing” but sailing through the remains of nuclear explosions once they arrived in Australia. Recently, a lawsuit was filed to represent 700 veterans who were apart of this experiment and others which were similarly conducted. The Ministry of Defense refuses to take responsibility. They claim that one cannot definitely link the illnesses with the exposure (a genetic component, perhaps?). One can also say that the sailors were not officially coerced into agreeing to stay after being informed of sailing through the clouds and that consent forms were not required during those years. However, obviously, one cannot deny the correlation between the number of sailors who went on these trips and the number of them who developed cancer. Also undeniable is the researched fact that “veterans who witnessed nuclear tests were three times more likely to have damaged chromosomes.” So I ask, what stand should one take when viewing this from an ethical perspective? Does ex-post facto come into play—applying laws/guidelines which exist today to a situation when these rules did not exist? Meaning, was it wrong for the navy to not ask for consent if it was not legally required at that time? On the other hand, if one does side with the sailors, what form of compensation is appropriate in light of the fact that “the damage has already been done?”
References:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/06/nbomb106.xml&page=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The main issue at stake here is whether it was ethically acceptable to send a boat full of healthy British sailors through a fallout cloud over Australian waters just to see what would happen. The sailors were informed that their “observation” of the nuclear explosion was actually an active immersion, so to speak, in the remains of the blast. Although the sailors were “informed” of what they were about to do, they were not asked for informed consent—or, as it seems, any consent, for that matter.
Based on the universal human desire for self-preservation, it seems quite clear that, given the option, none of the sailors would have agreed to participate in this dangerous test. The problem, in this case, was that the sailors’ permission was not obtained, and that they were not asked to participate in the study, they were forced. However, even in the hypothetical situation that the sailors were given an informed consent paper to read and sign, they may have been forced into the trial anyway. I do not mean physically forced or ordered, rather, they would have been coerced.
Our readings (I believe it was in the Oberman and Frader article, even though I couldn’t find the exact quote I was looking for) explain that it is unethical for doctors to ask patients to participate in clinical trials that they themselves are conducting, because even though the patients have every legal right to refuse to participate, they may agree anyway for fear that refusal might have a negative impact on their relationship with their physician. Comparably, had the sailors been given a choice of whether to participate in the trial or not, they may have given consent anyway for fear that their commanding officers would treat them unfairly in the future or that their peers might view them negatively (as “sissies” etc.). Therefore, even with today’s ethical standards hypothetically retroactive, this experiment is still unethical because of the undue leverage that commanding officers have over their soldiers.
I would agree that this "experiment" was quite unethical, largely stemming from the ambiguity of the consent obtained. Although I feel the sailors were wronged, I understand why the Ministry of Defense refuses to take responsibility; not only would admitting such a terrible act damage their image, but they can hide behind the fact that correlation does not mean causation. From the Ministry of Defense’s perspective, there is no way to definitively prove that the exposure to the nuclear matter caused the diseases; for all they know maybe the food the sailors ate on the trip (something they would not be as responsible for) had been contaminated with a poison. If the sailors had all lead similar lives after their exposure, and if the time frame were much smaller, maybe they would have a more compelling argument as there would be fewer confounding variables, and the distinction between correlation and causation would rapidly disintegrate. I think that the sailors would have a better opportunity to receive compensation if they demonstrated that their consent was not obtained and that their autonomy was violated.
What I find interesting about the initial blog entry is that no where is there a clear distinction of what the purpose was of this observational tour that the soldiers were tricked into. Was it to observe the detrimental effects of nuclear radiation on humans? What does “observe” mean? Perhaps, the government at the time had a different motive for asking these men to make observations in which case the ethics of medical experimentation really don’t apply to the case? Sure, the health effects that came to be apparent are quite unfortunate, but if the initial point of the mission was not a medical experiment then charges used informed consent can’t really be applied. That argument can be extrapolated to say that during any specific battle in a war, in which generals choose not to tell their troops of the overwhelming odds against them (if they are outnumbered or lack proper weaponry) they are not providing the soldiers with informed consent about the dangers of battle. Yet, this is considered a norm of military action because going into it, soldiers know their job bears risks. So likewise, the government in this situation didn’t do anything terribly wrong. Soldiers are given a general understanding of risks of their jobs and if a mission needs to remain on a need to know basis then this is the way it must be. The soldiers in question could have easily died from a bullet shot in battle thirty years before they developed cancer from this procedure.
Finding the topic of government involvement in human experimentation on nuclear fallout a very intriguing topic I decided to do some more research on the topic and found that upper levels of the US government had an even worse case of experimentation in the same field. The NY Times published an article about it after some digging by the government uncovered this top-secret project, which was deemed so to avoid public controversy and debate. The project came in existence during the Cold War as little was known about the effects of radiation. The government mandated soldiers, as part of their job, to participate in these trials, arguing that the dangers presented were just as grave as practice runs through open fires. These experiments included flashing subjects with the light from an explosion to see if they would go blind. Another involved soldiers swallowing film and flying through radioactive clouds to see how much the body absorbed. Yet another involved watching an explosion from 5 to 7 thousands yards from the detonation site and then walking to the area after detonation. Although the military claims these soldiers were volunteers, they were in fact ordered to participate and weren’t even told the risks they faced. There is no record of what occurred to these men later on in their life. Furthermore, several years later, the contemporary Secretary of Defense, Charles E. Wilson, created a written document that stated that informed consent was a necessity and that the benefits of these trials must outweigh the risks. He further suggested following the Nuremberg Code, which ironically was categorized as “highly classified” and therefore few people new of its existence or use. The final line of the article states my question exactly, “What is the effect of adopting ethical guidelines which are then kept top secret?”
I find this experimentation very ironic. In most people’s eyes the United States government is supposed to be the beacon of justice and rights and is supposed to support the people, since it was created “by the people, for the people.” While one might think that such a government would use common sense as a judgment force to decide whether or not what it is doing is ethically correct, specific laws must still exist to control people whose quest for knowledge may take the better of them.
Another topic I want to comment on the idea that a soldier participating in a nuclear radiation study is just as dangerous as him fighting in battle. I previously supported this idea in response to Alana’s blog entry but now I must repudiate this idea. A soldier fights his battles for patriotic ideals, because he is committed protecting the nation he loves. He does not sign up to be a guinea pig, which doesn’t satisfy his personal beliefs and ideals.
Upon reading the article I was purely horrified. If you want to read the full article the link is: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E2DC163CF931A25753C1A962958260 . Any opinions on the topic?
Marina, in response to your initial comment, the word "observe" was purposely used as an ambiguous term by the government officials. As imagined, they liked to keep terms as vague as possible. "Observe" was used when speaking to the soldiers which is why I used it. However, the article does state the following purpose for the observation: "commanders needed to know how long they (the soldiers) could fight with and without protective equipment in an environment contaminated by radioactive fallout." If there was a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, the British wanted to be ready. With such a motivation, this case certainly involves human ethics.
Also, I found your article about more "nuclear guinea-pigging" experiments quite interesting. It is certainly ironic that the US with its "liberty, freedom, and justice for all" would resort to such testing. Additionally, one must ask what is the importance of the soldiers being informed of the experiments if they are going to be forced into participating regardless of their desire? That is certainly not an adequate way to attempt to offer "informed" consent. It is equally disheartening to find out that the Nuremberg Code remained hidden. Personally, I would like to know why this document was kept secret--did someone have a motive in this case? Was this an act by government officials taken in order to promote the continuation of their questionable experiments?
Post a Comment