Havasupai Indians Case Summary

A case that starts in 1990 regarding research on the the Havasupai Indians is a great example of the flaws that can occur with broad consent. Many members of the Havasupai tribe willingly gave their DNA to researchers in the hope of finding out about the frequency of diabetes and the importance that is has on their rapidly decreasing population. When the members of the tribe signed the agreement, they consented to studies on “the causes of behavioral/medical disorders.” However, because of both the broad terms of their consent, and the fact that English is not the primary language spoken by most of the members, the Havasupai Indians were rightfully upset when they were presented with information that did not pertain to the relationship between diabetes and their tribe. The Havasupai Indians argue that they did not give consent for such a broad amount of studies. …show more content…
Within The Belmont Principles there are four main points: Respect for Autonomy, Justice, Beneficence, and Nonmaleficence. If the researchers would have respected the tribe’s autonomy, then they should not have used the tribes DNA without the tribe’s explicit consent. The researcher’s thought that they were acting justly because they were treating the Havasupai as if they were any other population in the US. However, unlike the majority of American’s, English is not their primary language, so, the researchers unjustly composed an agreement that may have been beyond the tribe’s comprehension level. Based upon the concept of beneficence, the researcher did not act in the tribe’s best interest because they were proving that some of the Havasupai tribe’s most deeply held religious beliefs were incorrect. Similarly this did not adhere to nonmaleficence because it harmed the tribe’s religious beliefs. In conclusion, based on The Belmont Principles, the researchers were ethically in the