Unfortunate results of unpredictable research: some times we cannot protect every one

We all know about the ethical implications of Zimbardo prison experiment and Milligram’s blind obedience but what about Schulz and Hanusa’s (1975) long term effects of control? What all these studies all have in common is that these researchers could not predict their findings would revel and how they could have put their participants in harm (arguably-Milgram not so much because he purposely put pressure on his participants/ but after the study participants revealed that they were glad they did it-even if a confident businessman became so anxious he trembled).
Schulz and Hanusa’s (1975) study looked at the fact human beings have a passion for control and without it they become unhappy ,helpless ,hopeless, depressed or even dead. In this investigation researchers gave elderly residence of a nursing home a houseplant. Half the residents took control of this plant (high- control condition) and the other half had nothing to do with it (low-control condition). In 6 months 30% of residence in low control group had died compared to 15% in high group. So far so good the researchers were only observing possible deaths and not enforcing it. However, in a follow up study it confirmed the need for control/dependence but had an unfortunate end. In the follow up study researchers arranged student volunteers to visit residents. The high control group could control when the volunteers can to visit where the low control group could not. The high control group were happier, healthier, more active and took less medication then the low group. At this point the researchers concluded the study and discontinued the students visits. In 7 months they were chagrined to learn that an usual about of residence who had benefited from the control had died. Only in retrospect could this, as in Milligram’s or Zimbardo’s studies, have been predicted. These unfortunate findings raced importance ethical concern of whether the residence suffered from the researcher input or whether the researchers should have continued the study or whether these findings should have enforced high control among the residence (there where some OK about this relatives and not so OK relatives).
This study illustrates how unpredictable investigations and there results can be. Is there anything so terrible about these results when there was no immoral intention .The study’s all got ethical approval (even millgram’s)but they have been branded unethical studies as particpants where subject to harm. However, is this really the researchers flat or just the way life is under the microscope?
Yes, I am trying to underline that subjecting participants to harm isn’t completely the researchers flat. We can protect participants to the best to our ability by being attentive, logical and alert but sometimes true harm to participants (not the little vibration in the finger SONA experiments or being a little uncomfortable/shocked ect) is unpredictable