The American State has a long history of designing, funding, and/or conducting unethical medical experiments on unsuspecting humans. I briefly documented this sordid history in an article entitled “Got Atrocities?”, which was published on September 17, 2013 at the Strike the Root website. No single article reviewing American State-related unethical human experimentation can ever be considered the final work, however, for information concerning previously unknown studies periodically leaks into the public domain.

Consequently, in this essay, I commend to your attention an October 17, 2013 New York Times story entitled “Decades Later, Condemnation for a Skid Row Cancer Study.” In this report, the author, Gina Kolata, discusses a recently discovered1950s and 1960s era prostate cancer study spearheaded by Columbia University urologist Dr. Perry Hudson, who was chief of urology at Francis Delafield Hospital (FDH). FDH, a $7 million cancer research facility that opened in 1950, was financed by the City of New York. Kolata’s article, unsurprisingly, raised many bioethical concerns about the conduct of Dr. Hudson’s study, particularly for an anarcholibertarian reader.

The presumed purpose of Dr. Hudson’s “study” was to attempt to determine if prostate cancer could be diagnosed at an early stage and subsequently cured with aggressive treatment. Thus, consenting patients underwent prostate biopsies. If the prostate biopsies revealed prostate cancer, the patient received definitive treatment via prostatectomy (surgical removal of the prostate), orchiectomy (surgical removal of the testicles), and diethylstilbestrol (estrogen hormonal therapy). Assuming the accuracy of Kolata’s journalism and a relevant peer-reviewed academic review entitled “”Screening” for Prostate Cancer in New York’s Skid Row: History and Implications” published in the January 2014 edition of the American Journal of Public Health, the bioethical problems with Dr. Hudson’s study included, but were not limited to, the following:

1. The study was partially funded by the National Institutes of Health, a medical subdivision of the criminal organization otherwise known as the American State.
2. Dr. Hudson did not adequately inform the patients of the risks (such as infection, bleeding, and pain) associated with the prostate biopsies.
3. Dr. Hudson did not adequately inform the patients diagnosed with prostate cancer about the risks of the subsequent definitive treatments; therefore, many of the men diagnosed with prostate cancer in this study were CASTRATED (yes, CASTRATED) without appropriate informed consent. Surgical removal of the ovaries without appropriate informed consent would be the equivalent scenario for a female patient.
4. Dr. Hudson deceived the patients diagnosed with prostate cancer about the efficacy of the definitive treatments. In fact, he admitted he told the prospective study participants that the rate of cure was “extremely high”. This statement was intentionally false, for no such medical data regarding surgery and hormonal therapy existed at the time.
5. Dr. Hudson did not adequately inform the patients diagnosed with prostate cancer that the definitive treatments were nonstandard therapy.
6. Dr. Hudson did not create a control group to compare to the experimental group of patients receiving nonstandard therapy. Control group patients would have received the standard therapy of the era for prostate cancer. Without a control group, there was no way to determine if the nonstandard therapy was superior, equivalent, or inferior to standard therapy.
7. Dr. Hudson recruited patients from the Bowery section of Lower Manhattan who may have been unable to give informed consent due to mental incapacity (severe alcoholics and/or mentally ill).

To sum up, Dr. Hudson conducted a spectacularly unethical prostate cancer study primarily funded by the American State.

A telling additional anecdote about Dr. Hudson’s study was related in a 1961 book entitled The Bowery Man. The author, Elmer Bendiner, noted that study volunteers at a New York City-run lodging house were not fed until they kept their scheduled appointment with Dr. Hudson to enroll in the study. In other words, New York City officials colluded with an outrageously unethical physician working at a New York City-funded hospital to starve homeless men in an attempt to coerce them into participating in a fraudulent study in which their bodies were ultimately aggressed against in horrendously invasive ways.

In conclusion, the Hudson prostate cancer study is just another example of the American State colluding with healthcare professional(s) to engage in medical aggression against hapless humans.