While I was reading "Natural Laboratories" I couldn't help but thinking about something my high school AP US History teacher told us. It was the morning of the AP test and she had made little goody bags for the test filled with a juice box and snacks. On each of the bags was a last little word of advice before taking the test. The majority of them were jokes from our class or had some kind of funny play on words. On one of the bags it said something urging us to remember that when in doubt, the Native Americans and black got the short end of the stick. The sad part is it's shockingly true. I'm not sure I've ever studied an area of American History when the Native American's weren't getting cheated, or coming up short in some way. This country's treatment of its native inhabitants is historically appalling. Even after the years and years in which the tribes were pushed farther and farther off their land, after they had their rights taken away, after their lives and culture were stripped away and they became second class citizens, this attitude still exists. I talked in one of my earlier posts about the sad fact that even though we vow to never let the same mistakes begin happen, there's not always a change, this is yet again, another example of that. Just like in some of the other examples that we read, consent was never received. Yet one of the most shocking parts of this article was the reaction to the situation after it was learned that there was a problem. It was found that no follow up visits were made and only a few were even contacted.
One of the quotes that I found most powerful was on the top of page 113 in which the Native American population is referred to an "'extensive data base' which 'provides a resource for studying health problems which will benefit other populations.''' For this to be something that was put out by a research policy committee is ridiculous. Since when is it okay for one population to be taken advantage of and exploited for the benefit of an "other" population. Sadly the answer according to our history seems to be since the beginning of medical research. I think an even more pressing question is why does there have to be an "other" population. Aren't we all citizens of the United States, and more importantly aren't we all citizens of the world, part of the human race? Why is it okay to put the well-being of one group of people over another? Who's to say who should be the group receiving these benefits at the cost of some other group? These are questions that I can't seem to get out of my head.
The article also brings up a point that was mentioned once in class. More than any kind of medical treatment available, the most helpful thing can be creating a healthy and sanitary living condition such as plumbing and nutrition. These are things that can be achieved, or at least worked towards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You raise some very good points. To answer your question about why Native American are not really considered or accepted as citizens of United States one might consider Smith’s explanation. She theorizes that colonists’ beliefs in the connection between Native Americans and plants and animals caused the colonists to relate the Indians more that group. Since the colonists viewed plants and animals as resources that were meant to be used, Indians were also placed into this same category because of their relationship with nature. We sees this is true in the quote that you used from the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee which called the Alaska Native villages under HIS an 'extensive data base' which 'provides a resource for studying health problems which will benefit other populations.'' I think besides the link between nature, the fact that their civilization was considered primitive in comparison to European civilization this only further supported the idea of their link to animals. Even the term “savage” that is mainly used to describe animals that are untamed and fierce was also used by the colonists to describe the natives. The term dehumanizes the natives which is one reason I think that we have the problem of sacrificing one group of people in order to benefit another group.
After all our discussions I wonder if abuse of minorities in experiments will ever stop. I feel that even if volunteers for drug research or medical procedures are given information before they consent to an experiment, research will find still find a way to target minorities. However it may be unintentional. We agreed that the incentive of giving away diapers in exchange for the parents’ consent to test a hepatitis vaccine on their children was terrible. But what if the researchers had fully informed them and given them a sufficient amount of money instead? Would the combination of informed consent and the right price be ethical enough? I feel that if a monetary incentive would be likely to attract the poor and the better off alike, but for riskier experiments the poor would still be targeted since their need for money is greater than someone with decent finances.
Post a Comment