Final answer:
The ethical violation in the Tuskegee Syphilis study was primarily of beneficence and non-maleficence, as life-saving treatment was withheld from participants, causing them harm. Elements of justice were also violated.
Step-by-step explanation:
The fact that participants in the Tuskegee Syphilis study did not receive available indicated treatment is primarily an ethical violation of beneficence and non-maleficence. Beneficence refers to the ethical principle that entails taking positive steps to help others, which includes providing treatments that can cure or prevent illness. The withholding of penicillin treatment from the participants despite it being available and recognized as an effective cure for syphilis goes against this principle. On the other hand, non-maleficence is the principle of not causing harm to others. By not treating the syphilis infection, the researchers allowed the participants to suffer needlessly, causing significant harm when they had the means to prevent or alleviate it. The ethical violation could also encompass elements of justice, as the Tuskegee study participants were not treated equally in comparison to other groups with access to syphilis treatment.