The Tuskegee syphilis study may have become ethically flawed, over time. But it certainly wasn't comparable to anything Mengele did.
I even see wild claims, presented as history, that the Tuskegee doctors deliberately infected men with syphilis. Absolutely not true. The study recruited men who were already infected. These men received care and treatment. Problem was, at the time the study began, there was no effective treatment for syphilis.
Then antibiotics were developed during WWII. Apparently these newly-invented antibiotics were not offered to the men who had enrolled themselves in the study, many years earlier. That was the moral problem with the Tuskegee study.
Would antibiotics, if offered, have helped any of these men, who at that point may have been in the tertiary stage of syphilis? I suspect it was too late for these men to have been helped. Should the new medicine have been offered to them? Probably. Although I think it is debatable whether a doctor should offer medication, when it is very unlikely to help a patient. An analogy might be starting chemotherapy on a patient who is already in final-stage organ failure.
We can pretend that there are differing degrees of inhumanity, but the fact remains that BOTH Mengele and the Tuskegee researchers performed "experiments" on their victims instead of treating them.
I even see wild claims, presented as history, that the Tuskegee doctors deliberately infected men with syphilis. Absolutely not true. The study recruited men who were already infected. These men received care and treatment.
First of all, the Tuskegee victims were NEVER INFORMED that they had syphilis. But more importantly, while they were TOLD that they were receiving medical care, they were actually studied for several months BEFORE receiving any type of treatment (and that treatment was known to be toxic).
Then antibiotics were developed during WWII. Apparently these newly-invented antibiotics were not offered to the men who had enrolled themselves in the study, many years earlier. That was the moral problem with the Tuskegee study.
The Tuskegee program continued for THREE DECADES after penicillin was known to be an effective treatment. This is more than a "moral problem," it is barbaric.
Would antibiotics, if offered, have helped any of these men, who at that point may have been in the tertiary stage of syphilis? I suspect it was too late for these men to have been helped.
The FACT that many of these men survived not only the four decades of the experiment, but for decades afterward, would seem to indicate that they WOULD have benefited from medical treatment. Additionally, many untreated syphilitics NEVER enter the tertiary stage, the "researchers" certainly would have known who did and who didn't.
Should the new medicine have been offered to them? Probably. Although I think it is debatable whether a doctor should offer medication, when it is very unlikely to help a patient. An analogy might be starting chemotherapy on a patient who is already in final-stage organ failure.
Probably?!
You think that it's acceptable to withhold medication for THREE DECADES based on your opinion of if it will help? Keep in mind that when it was found that penicillin was effective doctors DID give it to patients why syphilis who had been infected for as long as the men at Tuskegee.