US infected 2,500 Guatemalans with STDs

[Traitorfish]

I'm referring to the comment in the article:

It was the "mar the memory" part that I was questioning.

 

[aelf]

I understood what you were referring to perfectly.
What I'm saying, is that maybe, since there are details that are still not settled (certainly not mainstream media) you should hold off judgement of the Holocaust for a while.

Judgement should only be held off if that is in keeping with the conservative (Christian) right wing line. Wish it was more complicated than that, but it doesn't seem to be.

 

[Mark1031]

Do you have a better solution in compensating those who have been wronged in the past? If you take something from my family in order to pay the family of some slave descendents, you are committing a wrong -- my present-day family had no control over the exploitation of blacks, nor did even my ancestors, who arrived nearly a generation after slavery had been abolished. Furthermore, if the blacks are to be compensated for the wrongs done to them, who is to compensate my family who fled from monarchical enslavement in Europe?

Well I am just trying to be logical and consistent. If the decedents of economic harm cannot recover damages then just say that the decedents of economic gain cannot get benefits-thus 100% inheritance tax. Simple, fair, logical, consistent.

 

[GamezRule]

The US Government has always been quite scummy.

 

[Traitorfish]

The US Government has always been quite scummy.

No need to beat yourself up on this count.

 

[MobBoss]

It is quite well known that at least 83 died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment

Come on Form. Yes, 83 died, but its not a given that they died directly related to this experiment. The OP says that, and so does the link referenced by the Wiki you quote:

According to documents the commission had studied, at least 83 of the 5,500 subjects had died by the end of 1953.

The commission was unable to say whether any of those deaths were caused directly or indirectly by the deliberate infections.

Lets not cherry pick this. The fact of the matter is that although those 83 did die in the years following its unclea how they died, or if the experiments themselves had anything to do with it.

 

[Orka]

The fact of the matter is that although those 83 did die in the years following its unclea how they died, or if the experiments themselves had anything to do with it.

So are we to err on the side of daring or the side of caution? Should we pay all of them in order to ensure those who were really wronged are compensated, or should we pay none of them to ensure those who don't 'deserve' it don't get anything?

Would your judgment be different if the compensation wasn't for Guatemalans, but for Americans (say, the 9/11 rescue workers)?

 

[classical_hero]

Come on Form. Yes, 83 died, but its not a given that they died directly related to this experiment. The OP says that, and so does the link referenced by the Wiki you quote:



Lets not cherry pick this. The fact of the matter is that although those 83 did die in the years following its unclea how they died, or if the experiments themselves had anything to do with it.

They were tested on without their expressed consent, so they should be up for compensation.

 

[MobBoss]

So are we to err on the side of daring or the side of caution? Should we pay all of them in order to ensure those who were really wronged are compensated, or should we pay none of them to ensure those who don't 'deserve' it don't get anything?

Would your judgment be different if the compensation wasn't for Guatemalans, but for Americans (say, the 9/11 rescue workers)?

Why err on either side at all? Either there is direct proof those deaths were caused by this....or there isnt.

We should compensate those wronged for what is factual and proven....not assumed or alleged.

They were tested on without their expressed consent, so they should be up for compensation.

Sure. Compensated for being intentionally given an STD; not for causing someones death.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Lets not cherry pick this. The fact of the matter is that although those 83 did die in the years following its unclea how they died, or if the experiments themselves had anything to do with it.

They were exposed from 1946-1948 and at least 83 died by 1953. This was no coincidence. The effects of untreated syphilis are quite well know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis

Untreated it has a mortality of 8% to 58% with a greater death rate in males.[1]

 

[MobBoss]

They were exposed from 1946-1948 and at least 83 died by 1953. This was no coincidence. The effects of untreated syphilis are quite well know.

How do you know those 83 werent treated? The report does say that large numbers of them were.

Answer: you dont. All you are doing is making huge assumptions here with no basis of fact. For all you know, those 83 could have died of cancer, heart attack, simple accidents, or whatever.

Untreated it has a mortality of 8% to 58% with a greater death rate in males.[1]

Yeah, but what you left out is it takes 10 to 20 years for it to be even that lethal. Those 83 died in about 5 years. Sorry, but that just doesnt add up Form.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If they couldn't die in that time period, the report would have stated the deaths were completely unrelated.

The article on syphilis doesn't claim it always takes that long. It states that cardiovascular syphilis is one of the long-term complications of untreated syphilis.

 

[Orka]

Why err on either side at all? Either there is direct proof those deaths were caused by this....or there isnt.

We should compensate those wronged for what is factual and proven....not assumed or alleged.

Well, I'm assuming that there are some people who died as a result of the tests, but given the length of time that has passed, we can't be certain who. Correct me if I've completely misinterpreted this story. Now, because we can't determine who exactly deserves compensation, we can either give it to none of them (caution) or all of them (daring). Note that in both cases we're doing something 'unfair'; it just comes down to what we value. It seems you'd err on the side of caution. Fair enough, after all, we (I assume) don't have absolute evidence in each individual case. But be aware that statistically someone is probably being left behind. You just don't know who.

 

[MrCynical]

That those experimented on should receive compensation is beyond reasonable argument. There also needs to be an effort to track down anyone responsible for these experiments (in either the US or Guatemala) and bring them to trial. Granted this was a while ago, but it's possible some of them are still around.

Why err on either side at all? Either there is direct proof those deaths were caused by this....or there isnt.

We should compensate those wronged for what is factual and proven....not assumed or alleged.

The problem with this approach is that for a disease with a long period between infection and death it becomes impossible to prove any specific death was caused by the original infection. Particularly after this amount of time has passed. This is not an excuse for for assuming that none occurred just because any individual death cannot be dirrectly proven to be a result of their actions.

In these situations I feel the issue is not direct proof of harm, but what the perpetrators knew was likely to happen. The people who carried out the experiments knew the likely results included death and debilitating effects, and should be prosecuted assuming that those effects actually occurred. If someone gives a bunch of people a poison that kills in 10% of cases, they should get the same punishment whether they kill someone, or by sheer luck they don't. Their intent and actions were the same, and they do not deserve leniency for random chance.

As to who gets compensated, it's any original survivors, plus anyone known to have been directly and unintentionally infected by them. Compensating direct family members after this much time is dubious - go back far enough and pretty much everyone's family has been wronged by someone, and it's questionable whether the people receiving the compensation were directly affected. Due to the aforementioned problems with individaul cases the best option is probably to pool compensation and distribute evenly among all victims.

 

[MobBoss]

If they couldn't die in that time period, the report would have stated the deaths were completely unrelated.

Uh...the report did say:

The commission was unable to say whether any of those deaths were caused directly or indirectly by the deliberate infections

What part of that isnt clear?

The article on syphilis doesn't claim it always takes that long. It states that cardiovascular syphilis is one of the long-term complications of untreated syphilis.

Thats because I looked into it further and got that information from the Centers for Disease Control. You know...a source a bit better than just a wiki page. http://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/stdfact-syphilis.htm

The late stages of syphilis can develop in about 15% of people who have not been treated for syphilis, and can appear 10–20 years after infection was first acquired.

Well, I'm assuming that there are some people who died as a result of the tests, but given the length of time that has passed, we can't be certain who. Correct me if I've completely misinterpreted this story. Now, because we can't determine who exactly deserves compensation, we can either give it to none of them (caution) or all of them (daring).

No, thats incorrect. We absolutely can give the survivors compensation for doing the experiments on them; but if we cannot determine the cause of death, we arent going to compensate them for a wrongful death attributed to the experiments. Presumably, someone would be compensated at a much higher rate for death as opposed to merely being infected with an STD.

Note that in both cases we're doing something 'unfair'; it just comes down to what we value. It seems you'd err on the side of caution. Fair enough, after all, we (I assume) don't have absolute evidence in each individual case. But be aware that statistically someone is probably being left behind. You just don't know who.

We dont pay out claims based on 'maybes' but on what is proven or not.

That those experimented on should receive compensation is beyond reasonable argument. There also needs to be an effort to track down anyone responsible for these experiments (in either the US or Guatemala) and bring them to trial. Granted this was a while ago, but it's possible some of them are still around.

They are all either dead or of extreme advanced age (one doctor is given to be in his 90s).

The problem with this approach is that for a disease with a long period between infection and death it becomes impossible to prove any specific death was caused by the original infection. Particularly after this amount of time has passed. This is not an excuse for for assuming that none occurred just because any individual death cannot be dirrectly proven to be a result of their actions.

Why assume anything? Why not just deal in facts?

In these situations I feel the issue is not direct proof of harm, but what the perpetrators knew was likely to happen. The people who carried out the experiments knew the likely results included death and debilitating effects, and should be prosecuted assuming that those effects actually occurred. If someone gives a bunch of people a poison that kills in 10% of cases, they should get the same punishment whether they kill someone, or by sheer luck they don't. Their intent and actions were the same, and they do not deserve leniency for random chance.

Maybe they were under the impression that those being infected would then be treated by various drugs to see the effects?

As to who gets compensated, it's any original survivors, plus anyone known to have been directly and unintentionally infected by them. Compensating direct family members after this much time is dubious - go back far enough and pretty much everyone's family has been wronged by someone, and it's questionable whether the people receiving the compensation were directly affected. Due to the aforementioned problems with individaul cases the best option is probably to pool compensation and distribute evenly among all victims.

Family members are usually only compensated if a death is proven to be the fault of the US government.

 

[holy king]

mobby, do you get paid for defending every fart a us government has made over the last 250 years?

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

The US Government has always been quite scummy.

The Cherokees could have told you that.

Yet some people want the federal government to be bigger and more powerful, no matter how many stories like this come out.

 

[MobBoss]

mobby, do you get paid for defending every fart a us government has made over the last 250 years?

Didnt I say these people were due compensation for being experimented on?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yet some people want the federal government to be bigger and more powerful, no matter how many stories like this come out.

That's about as gross an over-simplification as you could possibly have managed. I'm almost impressed.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That those experimented on should receive compensation is beyond reasonable argument. There also needs to be an effort to track down anyone responsible for these experiments (in either the US or Guatemala) and bring them to trial. Granted this was a while ago, but it's possible some of them are still around.

I couldn't agree more.

Thats because I looked into it further and got that information from the Centers for Disease Control. You know...a source a bit better than just a wiki page. http://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/stdfact-syphilis.htm

The late stages of syphilis can develop in about 15% of people who have not been treated for syphilis, and can appear 10–20 years after infection was first acquired.

That is just documenting how long it takes for cardiovascular syphilis to develop, and it is essentially just stating the same thing the Wiki article stated.

Cardiovascular syphilis usually occurs 10–30 years after the initial infection. The most common complications is syphilitic aortitis which may result in aneurysm formation.[1]

Once again, that is clearly not the only way that syphilis can kill you. If it did take that long for every syphilis victim to die, the report would have claimed there was no way that anybody from the study could have died from syphilis in only 5 years.