|
Section 4. Reading
Title: Judging the Past: The Case of the Human Radiation
Experiments
Author: Allen Buchanan
Publication Information: Hastings Center Report, Vol. 26,
no.3 (1996):25-30
Summary:
Allen Buchanan disapproves the reasons that people often
give about not
judging the past actions of individuals or organizations.
Such reasons
are cultural ethical relativism, culturally induced
ignorance, and
informed consent by the victims. Buchanan looks at the human
radiation
experiments of late 1940s and early 1950s and believes that
it was
unethical then and it is unethical today. Clinton
Administration formed
a committee, which also found that the sponsors of these
radiation
experiments could not justify the “national security
exception”, the
reason they used for conducting these experiments. Buchanan,
in her
article “Judging the Past”, stresses that we can and we
should make
retrospective moral judgments that can also deter future
wrong doings.
The judgment remains valid despite the passage of time.
The cultural relativism speculates that retrospective
moral judgment is
invalid if we apply it across different cultures. It makes us
believe
that as long as someone is not doing wrong in the context of
his or own
cultural norms, it is right. In other words, we cannot apply
our ethical
standards to other cultures that do not share our “values”.
Buchanan
says that we should be entitled to human rights “simply by
virtue of our
humanity”. It does not matter which culture we belong to and
when and
where we live. Buchanan takes the example of Bosnia, where
Bosnian Serbs
allegedly killed Muslim prisoners. She points out that in
this case, we
do not question whether the cultural values of Bosnian Serbs
condemn
such killings or not. Most of us simply believe that such
killings were
wrong and violations of human rights of those killed. Hence,
the fact
about human rights being free of any cultural associations
invalidates
the position that cultural relativism presents about
retrospective moral
judgment.
Buchanan writes that the human radiation experiments that
took place at
Fernando School violated the human rights of the physically
challenged
and powerless children. The sponsors of these radiation
experiments
violated the very basic and general moral principles. They
deceived and
exploited the most vulnerable lot. They harmed them without
their
consent. The “national security exception” was just a mean to
avoid
legal liability and public outrage. Buchanan stresses that
even if the
“national security exception” were true, it is too little to
let this
cultural difference “provide a valid excuse” for those who
approved and
conducted those experiments. Sometimes, we see Culturally
Induced
Ignorance as a factor invalidating the retrospective
judgments. Given
the technology and knowledge of physicians in 1940s and 50s
who
performed the radiation experiments, they might have believed
that there
was a minimal risk on the subjects from such experiments.
Considering
this culturally induced ignorance of relevance facts, we
might conclude
that their “ignorance was not culpable”. However, Buchanan
points out
the committee that investigated these radiation experiments
did not find
any factual error - culturally induced or otherwise. In human
radiation
experiments conducted at the University of Rochester and
University of
California, subjects received plutonium injections. Even if
the physical
risk from these injections was minimum, Buchanan stresses
that they
treated the subjects wrongly nevertheless and there was not
any
therapeutic benefit from these experiments. She finds the
physicians
blameworthy for conducting experiments without any benefit to
the
subjects.
One “plausible” argument that goes in favor of those who
conducted the
radiation experiments is that the informed consent was not an
accepted
standard in those days. Today’s informed consent laws and
principles are
different and complex from 50 years ago. We may not be able
to judge the
conducts of the physicians from the past with today’s laws
and
principles of informed consents. Buchanan, however, finds
bare consent
sought in all cases of radiation experiments that she
studied. She hence
argues that an accepted standard for consent becomes
irrelevant. In the
conclusion, Buchanan warns us that we should not fall into
the trap of
thinking that suggests that we should rather focus on the
future
prevention of such wrong doings than judging the past wrong
doings. She
finds these two things interrelated and argues that effective
prevention
action must include the accountability of all acting
individuals so
people do not go blameless under the cover of institutions.
If people
know that they will be judged of their past, present, and
future
actions, they will act more responsibly.
Summary: Hita Gurung (QCC,2003) |