Last summer, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a controversial report recommending the return of federally funded medical research to our nation's prisons. Propelled by historical amnesia and corporate greed, a resurgence of such research may do much harm.
Adrian, have you ever seen this letter? It circulates amongst the Hepatitis C families...
Pretty damning "evidence" that might go a long way towards explaining why only 3% of North America has hep c, but in most prisons that statistic zooms up to over 40%!!!
Menolly
~~~~~
April 5, 1948 letter from C.J. Watson, M.D., ArmyEpidemiological Board to Dr. McLeod, with a copy to Dr.Stokes and others
War DepartmentOffice of the Surgeon GeneralARMY EPIDEMIOLOGICAL BOARDUnited States Army
April 5, 1948Dr. Colin M. MacLeodNew York UniversityCollege of Medicine477 First AvenueNew York 16, N.Y.Dear Dr. MacLeod: I have given careful consideration in the past few weeks tothe matter of using volunteers in penal institutions forexperimentation, with particular reference to hepatitis. Threeweeks ago I had a conversation with Mr. Durnquist, the AttorneyGeneral of the State of Minnesota, with respect to thepossibility of conducting experimental work on volunteers in theMinnesota penitentiaries. Mr. Durnquist was favorably inclinedto the idea and quite optimistic about its feasibility. Later Ihad a lengthy discussion with Dean Everett Fraser (Law School)and with Dr. Vold of the Division of Criminology of theDepartment of Sociology in the University. I asked themspecifically whether a waiver signed by the volunteers would belegal at a later date, insofar as evidence of responsibility fordisability or death was concerned. I asked this question bothwith respect to a waiver made out to the individual experimenteras well as to one assigned to the official agency sponsoring theresearch, that is to say, the army Epidemiological Board of theWar Department. They did not believe that such a waiver would beof much value, although they stated that so far as they knewthere was no precedent in law to determine in advance what mighthappen in case of a suit. They pointed out that a cleverattorney at some later date might very well be able to overthrowsuch a waiver and get a judgment against an experimenter in caseof a disability or even succeed in having him declared guilty ofhomicide in case of a death. Mr. Vold stated that there might be some recorded law ___ingon this whole matter in the state of Massachusetts. He pointedout that during the war volunteer prisoners were used for thetesting "of synthetic blood serum", and that one or more deathsin addition to a number of severe illnesses resulted. Hesuggests one might get all the information about this from theCommissioner of Correction of the State of Massachusetts, StateHouse, Boston. Mr. Vold also informed me of an interesting pointthat may have no bearing on the present matter; namely, that thebrains of criminals executed in New York state are removed by lawor at least by state prerogative, but that the body is not available fordissection unless it is unclaimed. While this is probably notgermane to the problem of using volunteers for experimentation,Mr. Vold thought that it might be of interest to determinewhether there is any written law concerning this prerogative and,if so, how it has been established. There is, of course, precedent for the use of volunteers forexperimental purposes, as for example in Illinois and New Jersey. According to my legal friends, however, the responsibility forthese experiments would devolve entirely upon the individualexperimenter in case of a later suit or complaint. The mere factthat the warden or the state authorities give permission to theexperimenter to ask for volunteers in no way removes hisresponsibility, not does it place any of it on the state. Thisat least is the interpretation that Dean Fraser put upon thequestion, although he admitted that he knew of no law by whichany real decision could be reached in advance. I have given considerable thought to the matter of whetherit would be advisable to approach individuals or groups inCongress with the idea of having laws passed relating either topayment of compensation for disability or release of theexperimenter from liability. I am afraid that this would be avery dangerous course, and that it might in fact, injure clinicalinvestigations generally. There is a very real possibility thatunfavorable publicity would quickly result. Dean Fraser and hiscolleagues were in thorough agreement on this point. I have concluded then that any human experimentation must becarried out in the future as in the past, on the basis of thesole liability of the individual experimenter. I should be glad to hear from you or from others to whomcopies of this letter are being sent as to any alternativeapproaches to the problem that the may have in mind. I think itwould be well if someone could look in the Massachusettsexperience as mentioned above. With kindest regards, Sincerely yours, C. J. Watson, M. D. P.S.: I do feel strongly, however, that if the Army approves and finances a specific research involving human experimentation, with the intention of accepting and utilizing any practical results therefrom, it should be willing to obligate itself to the protection of the experimenter, at least to the extent of purchasing a special insurance policy for each project of this type, covering disability or death. (By this I mean one comparable to a malpractice policy , protecting the experimenter against later suit for compensation. Obviously, no publicity should be given to this.)
CS/vrcc: Col. F. Rauer Dr. W. P. Havens Dr. J. Neefe Dr. J. Stokes Dr. J. PaulCOPIED: 12/2/94RECORD Group: # 334Entry: #14File: Commission on Liver Diseases on Human Volunteers forHepatitis Studies in Feb. 1945