If one were to look at the résumé of Doctor Chester Southam, an immunologist who worked at Sloan-Kettering hospital in New York City, he or she would see the pedigree of an expert medic and a former president of the American Association of Cancer Research. However, impressive credentials like these hide the fact that Dr. Southam is a criminal, a thief, and a fraud. Southam of course has no official criminal record, but his actions as the head researcher of a series of cancer studies that he had been running for well over a decade speak for themselves. He not only stole the health, the autonomy, and the medical freedom of countless unwilling participants in his studies, but he did so by violating numerous medical ethics policies.
Dr. Southam’s research purpose was to see if the immune systems of chronically ill people would react any differently to cancer compared to the immune systems of people who were healthy. While this is certainly a reasonable framework for a scientific experiment, Southam’s methodology was flawed to say the least. His work started in Africa and it was there that he injected a combination of rare and common diseases in severely ill cancer patients. These diseases included but were not limited to mumps, dengue, West Nile Virus, and Semliki Forest virus. It is unclear if the participants, who in this case were severely ill cancer patients, provided consent and agreed to be part of Southam’s experiment. However, judging from his other research scandals it wouldn’t be surprising if these people were not informed of their participant status.
Southam continued his cancer research in the United States, and in a state prison in Ohio he injected more than 100 inmates with cancer cells and other viruses. But, his most memorable ethics scandal occurred in Brooklyn, New York at a chronic disease hospital in 1963. Dr. Southam and his team lied to the patients of this hospital by telling them that they were being injected with human cells that were growing in test tubes. While this is not entirely false, he was not telling the complete truth as he failed to mention that those human cells were live cancer cells and therefore would exponentially increase those patients’ risks for developing cancer(s).
Credit must be given to three doctors at the hospital who refused to participate in such research. The three of them all stated in interviews that they couldn’t in good conscience, inject chronically ill patients with live cancer cells and expedite their continued deteriorating health and suffering, especially against the patients’ knowledge and will. It is remarkable that there were only three doctors who objected to subjecting patients to unnecessary risk and violating general ethics policies. Even with the dissenting doctors, the study was still conducted and 22 geriatric patients were injected with live cancer cells.
Dr. Southam might have completed his research and got the answers he was looking for, and he may be remembered by the medical community as a man who was at the forefront of cancer research, but he is by no means an admirable doctor. The entire purpose of a doctor is to heal, which by default would mean a doctor would have to be equal parts humanistic compassion and medical expertise. Dr. Southam did not have humanistic compassion. He had a few self-interests that trumped the basic meaning of what a doctor is and what a doctor should be. While preventing illness in future generations is an excellent plan, doing so by heavily risking the possibility of making a current generation sick or worse in their already ill condition, is immoral. It’s astonishing that a violation of ethics of this magnitude occurred not at all that long ago. Hopefully the lessons of this scandal are long lasting and far reaching.
Dr. Southam’s research purpose was to see if the immune systems of chronically ill people would react any differently to cancer compared to the immune systems of people who were healthy. While this is certainly a reasonable framework for a scientific experiment, Southam’s methodology was flawed to say the least. His work started in Africa and it was there that he injected a combination of rare and common diseases in severely ill cancer patients. These diseases included but were not limited to mumps, dengue, West Nile Virus, and Semliki Forest virus. It is unclear if the participants, who in this case were severely ill cancer patients, provided consent and agreed to be part of Southam’s experiment. However, judging from his other research scandals it wouldn’t be surprising if these people were not informed of their participant status.
Southam continued his cancer research in the United States, and in a state prison in Ohio he injected more than 100 inmates with cancer cells and other viruses. But, his most memorable ethics scandal occurred in Brooklyn, New York at a chronic disease hospital in 1963. Dr. Southam and his team lied to the patients of this hospital by telling them that they were being injected with human cells that were growing in test tubes. While this is not entirely false, he was not telling the complete truth as he failed to mention that those human cells were live cancer cells and therefore would exponentially increase those patients’ risks for developing cancer(s).
Credit must be given to three doctors at the hospital who refused to participate in such research. The three of them all stated in interviews that they couldn’t in good conscience, inject chronically ill patients with live cancer cells and expedite their continued deteriorating health and suffering, especially against the patients’ knowledge and will. It is remarkable that there were only three doctors who objected to subjecting patients to unnecessary risk and violating general ethics policies. Even with the dissenting doctors, the study was still conducted and 22 geriatric patients were injected with live cancer cells.
Dr. Southam might have completed his research and got the answers he was looking for, and he may be remembered by the medical community as a man who was at the forefront of cancer research, but he is by no means an admirable doctor. The entire purpose of a doctor is to heal, which by default would mean a doctor would have to be equal parts humanistic compassion and medical expertise. Dr. Southam did not have humanistic compassion. He had a few self-interests that trumped the basic meaning of what a doctor is and what a doctor should be. While preventing illness in future generations is an excellent plan, doing so by heavily risking the possibility of making a current generation sick or worse in their already ill condition, is immoral. It’s astonishing that a violation of ethics of this magnitude occurred not at all that long ago. Hopefully the lessons of this scandal are long lasting and far reaching.
RSS Feed
