Research Ethics and the Nuremberg Trials (original) (raw)
AI-generated Abstract
The Nuremberg Doctors Trial has played a significant role in shaping discussions on research ethics, particularly in the medical and life sciences fields. This paper examines the historical context of the Nuremberg Trials, the ethical implications of the Doctors Trial, and the establishment of the Nuremberg Code, highlighting its inadequacies and the complex lessons it imparts regarding patient consent and the regulation of medical experimentation. It argues that while the Nuremberg Code emerged in response to past atrocities, its application and interpretation have often reflected biases and may not adequately address contemporary ethical challenges in research.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
The Nuremberg Trials and Their Legacy for the Rights of Patients and Research Subjects
The Denning Law Journal
When does clinical research designed to save lives and advance medicine become assault and murder? In the twentieth century the line between legitimate research on human subjects and criminal assault has been variously drawn. The demands of the researcher and the voice of the research subject and patient have received varying recognition. With the upswing of clinical research in the early twentieth century and some dramatic breakthroughs in medicine there was a tendency to heroise the researcher in the ‘fight’ against disease. In Nazi Germany, there were strong pressures to conduct research on lives deemed worthless in the hope of producing valuable breakthroughs in medical research to benefit the nation and race. After all, if the mentally ill and racially inferior Jews and Gypsies were going to be killed, their bodies might still serve a useful purpose. After WW2 the Nuremberg Trials were conducted on the basis of ‘crimes against humanity’, and by documenting wartime atrocities di...
The Scars of Ravensbrück': Medical Experiments and British War Crimes Policy, 1945–1950
German History, 2005
Although the fiftieth anniversary of the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial (1946À47) sparked significant debate about medical ethics and the origins of the Nuremberg Code, historians have so far paid little, if any, attention to Allied war crimes policy on the investigation of German medical atrocities, of which the Ravensbrü ck trials formed part. 1 British war crimes policy, in particular, was concerned with medical war crimes committed by German researchers at the Ravensbrü ck concentration camp. Much of the evidence against some key defendants at the Doctors' Trial, most notably Karl Gebhardt, Fritz Fischer and Herta Oberheuser, was compiled by British war crimes experts and made available to the US Chief of Counsel. 2 ÃI wish to thank three anonymous referees for their helpful and constructive suggestions and my colleagues at the University of Kent and elsewhere for their ongoing support.
There is a considerable amount of academic and popular literature on Nazi medical experimentation within concentration camps, however, the existing research largely focuses on the doctors and the details of their experiments and has neglected two interesting themes. The first neglected theme is the potential legal liabilities and defense strategies of those among the SS leadership, such as SS General Karl Wolff. Wolff facilitated these experiments in a purely administrative capacity, but without his contribution this type of war crime would not have been possible. Secondly, the research has neglected the extent to which Wolff was able to avoid legal accountability for these and other war crimes, as a result of his wartime cooperation with a U.S. intelligence agency and his post-war assistance to interrogators within the Allied Military Intelligence as well as the Nuremberg prosecutors. This article focuses largely on the first theme. It gives particular attention to Wolff’s attempts to avoid prosecution by insisting that the experiments were of a voluntary nature, based on the consent of the research subject, and were, therefore, not criminal acts. Additionally, the article focuses on Wolff’s claim that he did not possess the requisite mens rea or intent necessary to secure a criminal conviction.
2013
s in order of presentation: Paul Weindling, Anna von Villiez, Aleksandra Loewenau (Oxford Brookes University), and Nichola Farron (Amsterdam): Researching Experiment Victims – Findings and Problems The victims of medical experiments and other forms of coerced research form a distinctive but still inadequately understood set of WW2 and Holocaust victims. Leading Nazis, notably Himmler, gave much attention to devising and enabling experiments. The numbers and identities of victims, and the very diverse locations, have long only been known in terms of isolated clusters. The aim of our research has been to build up a composite picture by piecing together fragmented victim records. Essentially the methodology is one of “record linkage” with the overall aim of reconstructing the total population (or at least as near to this as is possible) of victims. This provides the basis for a structural analysis in terms of victim cohorts, perpetrator profiles, and the agencies sponsoring such resear...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.