| Guatemala syphilis experiments: why the US's apology may not be enough There is a case for the relatives of prisoners given syphilis in medical tests in the 1940s to receive compensationIf medical researchers could infect their subjects with the disease new medicine was supposed to treat, the world would be a terrifying place.As a response to the dehumanisation wrought by human experimentation in the second world war, the Nuremberg Code, and later the Helsinki Code in 1967, were developed to govern ethics in medical research. Both instruments — constituting the pre-eminent international standards on these issues – propound the need for informed consent in all research, and prohibit experiments where injury, disability or death to the participant is reasonably expected. The Helsinki Code expressly warns that the "interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the wellbeing of the subject."Recent discovery by a Wellesley College professor, Susan Reverby, of a US-funded syphilis inoculation project in Guatemala in the 1940s has brought ethics in medical research back into public focus. Records show that in these studies, infected prostitutes were deployed to have sex with men in prisons. Syphilitic growths on the testicles of infected rabbits and from infected men were used to inoculate inmates who were subjects in these studies. This exposé also uncovered the involvement of the Guatemalan government.The US has been remarkably robust in issuing an apology, calling these research practices "unethical", "abhorrent" and "reprehensible". It has promised "a thorough investigation into the specifics of this case" and pledged to launch a Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to "review and report on the most effective methods to ensure that all human medical research conducted around the globe today meets rigorous ethical standards."Ariel Dulitzky, a professor of law at the University of Texas law school and an expert on the inter-American system of human rights, is of the view that the US apology does not go far enough, and believes there should be financial compensation to the victims and their descendants. He is emphatic that the apology should have been directed to "the victims, and not the present Guatemalan president [Álvaro Colom], as the government at the time had been complicit in the research".The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has dealt with a comparable matter that concluded with a friendly settlement between the government of Peru and the descendants of a victim in 2003. María Mamérita Mestanza was a mother of seven children in Peru, who was pressured to accept sterilisation as part of a compulsory and systematic government policy for altering the reproductive behaviour of poor, Indian and rural women. She died as a result of a "sepsis" and bilateral tubal blockage in 1998.In issuing its opinion, the commission observed that "any violation of an international obligation that results in injury brings with it the duty for adequate reparation, which can most justly be done through compensation of the victim, investigation of the facts, and administrative, civil and criminal penalties for the responsible parties." The Peruvian government agreed to address all these areas in the case of Mestanza, and included a pledge to change the laws and public policies on reproductive health and family planning, eliminating discriminatory approaches and respecting women's autonomy.The way that this case from Peru was handled supports the view that adequate reparations – include monetary redress and criminal investigations – in Guatemala matter. Some would also argue that the Guatemala study constituted torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and as such, the US has an obligation under international law to pursue criminal investigations and provide the victims with adequate financial compensation.Philip Dayle is a lawyer who has worked in human rights at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington DC and the International Commission of Jurists in GenevaGuatemalaHealthMedical researchPhilip Dayleguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Cameron v Miliband: Let battle commence Ed Miliband gives David Cameron '0/2' in answering his question as the pair have their first squabble at PMQs about benefits. bbc.co.uk |
Iran Releases U.S. Businessman Iranian authorities agreed to allow Reza Taghavi, a businessman from Los Angeles, to leave Iran and return to the U.S., said Pierre Prosper, the lawyer who negotiated Mr. Taghavi's release. online.wsj.com |
On being out, proud and conservative | Tammy Bruce My left-liberal experience was of intolerance if you dared challenge political correctness. The right is more acceptingThere's a little something I noticed in the reaction to my first article here at the Guardian – a question tucked in the midst of the hundreds of pithy and thoughtful reader contributions – I was asked: what is it like to be gay and conservative? After all, those conservatives hate the homos, don't they? It must be very, very difficult for me, one concerned reader noted, to be among the intolerant and hateful. Well, I do suppose I would rather bask in the unbridled sunlight of liberal values of fairness, tolerance and love so eloquently on display in many of the comments made on my first contribution here. I know, it seems like such an odd decision, to reject the Eden of the liberal establishment. Yet strangely, after having been on the left for so long myself, I began to wonder: how much love and understanding can one person take?Presumably, "batshit crazy"is an English liberal term of endearment, right? When I read another commenter's description of American conservative women politicians as "a bunch of petty, incoherent shrews", I was filled with joy at realising how great it was to be among authentic feminists once again.Having made my point, I trust, I'll now slip out of my snark suit and share a little secret with you. The real story of bigotry and intolerance is the fact that it lives and thrives on the left. As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda. Think about what would happen if you did act up? If you dared to say you like Sarah Palin, or admire Margaret Thatcher, or think global warming is a hoax, or think Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, or that George W Bush isn't to blame for everything, or that Barack Obama has absolutely no clue what he's doing, you know there would be a price to pay. Odds are that your "liberal" friends would very liberally hate you. At the very least, being shunned would be your new experience, condemning you to suffer that horrific liberal malady called social death. So, when it comes to my comfort level as a conservative who happens to be gay, here's what I know: while many conservatives are people of faith and their religion promotes a very different point of view than mine on homosexuality (and a few other things!), I have found conservatives to be more tolerant, more curious and more understanding of those who are different to them than I ever did when ensconced in US liberal leadership. Are there religious extremists on the right? Of course, but they are marginalised and rejected. As an example, this year at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Committee), considered the premier, annual conservative gathering in America, a speaker stepped up to the podium and began verbally to attack gays and lesbians. He was summarily booed from the stage by a conservative audience that refused to allow such bigotry to continue. As you might have gathered, I prefer the honest, decent and genuinely accepting friends and family I have in the conservative world. We don't always agree on everything, but isn't that the point? – being able to be yourself, make choices that best suit you, without fear of punishment or retribution. My friendships and relationships in the conservative world are not predicated on political correctness and enforced conformity of thought. They are based, instead, on mutual respect, honesty and understanding – concepts many modern liberals should consider revisiting.RepublicansUS politicsGay rightsUnited StatesFreedom of speechTammy Bruceguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Romania Faces No-Confidence Vote Romania's Parliament began debating a motion of no-confidence against the country's government as about 30,000 people gathered to protest wage cuts and austerity measures. online.wsj.com |