Week 2 Assignment
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Northeastern University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6381
Subject
History
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by AgentSalamanderPerson867
Week
2:
Questions
on
reading
&
video
assignment
on
World
War
II
&
the
Nuremberg
Code
1) During the Nuremburg Doctors trial, the attorneys for the Nazi defendants argued that
their treatment of prisoners in the Nazi concentration camps were no worse than the
American malaria experiments conducted on prisoners in the Statesville, Illinois
Penitentiary. Who was Andrew Ivy & How did he respond to this claim in his testimony
during the trial?
Answer- Andrew C. Ivy was one of the three doctors who prosecuted 23 nazi doctors with
murder and torture of Nazi concentration camp prisoners because of unethical and inhumane
medical trials carried out on them. Born in Missouri in 1893, he was a committed scientist and
the vice president of the University of Illinois. He played a key role in the Nuremberg Doctors’
Trial focused on the medical experiments conducted by Nazi physicians on concentration camp
inmates, which often resulted in severe suffering and death (
Historian Examines U.S. Ethics in
Nuremberg Medical Trial Tactics | Cornell Chronicle
, 1996).
During the trial, the attorneys for the Nazi defendants argued that the medical experiments
carried out on the Nazi concentration camp prisoners were no different from the American
malaria experiments conducted on the prisoners of Statesville, Illinois Penitentiary. Andrew Ivy
was called for the rebuttal of this claim. He rejected the idea that these two situations were
comparable and cited the following differences between the two:
-
Consent: Ivy said that the American experiments were carried out with explicit consent of
the prisoners. On the other hand, the Nazi medical experiments were carried out without
the consent of the prisoners, and this often resulted in death of the prisoners.
-
No scientific purpose: Ivy claimed that while the American malaria experiments were
carried out with a definitive scientific purpose and knowledge, the Nazi experiments did
not have any scientific purpose and were often just sadistic in nature.
-
Ethics- Ivy claimed that the Nazi doctors had violated biological ethics during these
medical experiments on the concentration camp prisoners.
Ivy claimed that while both the instances of experimentation were unethical, the Nazi
experiments were sadistic and brutal on an inhuman level and violated the terms as mentioned
above (Shuster, 2018).
2) Who was Albert Moll and what did he say about the role of a book published in 1920
entitled "
Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens
" (translated:
Permission to
Destroy Life Unworthy of Life)
.
Answer- Albert Moll, who lived from 1862 to 1939, was a versatile figure renowned in the fields
of neurology, psychology, sexology, and ethics. He is acknowledged as one of the early
trailblazers in the development of medical psychology and sexology, sharing this distinction with
figures like Iwan Bloch and Magnus Hirschfeld. However, despite his significant contributions,
Moll's work often remained in the shadow of his contemporaries, particularly Hirschfeld and
Sigmund Freud. This overshadowing was exacerbated by a strong sense of competition between
these individuals. Moll criticized Freud for perceived biases in his work, while Freud countered
that Moll was not receptive to constructive criticism after their initial encounter (Oosterhuis,
2019).
Albert Moll took a strong stand against the concepts presented in the 1920 book "Die Freigabe
der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens." He saw these ideas as highly unethical and morally
problematic because they advocated for selectively ending the lives of individuals based on
judgments about their value or worthiness (Sigusch, 2012). Moll's position highlighted his deep
commitment to ethical standards in the fields of medicine and psychology. He emphasized the
utmost importance of upholding human dignity and firmly rejected the notion of euthanizing
individuals who were deemed socially undesirable or burdensome.
3) Who were the Axis Powers? What roles did they have in the establishment of the
Nuremburg Code?
Answer- The Axis powers, initially named Rome–Berlin Axis, were a military alliance that
played a pivotal role in initiating World War II and opposing the Allied forces. This coalition
primarily comprised Nazi Germany, the Kingdom of Italy, and the Empire of Japan. While the
Axis powers shared right-wing ideologies and a common opposition to the Allies, they did not
exhibit the same level of coordination and ideological unity.
The formation of the Axis alliance resulted from independent diplomatic endeavors by Germany,
Italy, and Japan during the mid-1930s, with each nation pursuing its own expansionist ambitions.
The Axis powers, especially Nazi Germany, indirectly played a role in the formulation of the
Nuremberg Code due to their involvement in unethical medical experiments during World War
II. When the Nuremberg Trials unveiled the extent of these appalling actions, it prompted the
establishment of Nuremberg Code as a framework of guidelines related to ethics for human
research, aimed at averting similar abuses in the future (Malloryk, 2020).
4) What is the Nuremburg Code (
how many parts are there and what are they
), who issued it
and when?
Answer- The Nuremberg Code, born out of the Nuremberg Trials, particularly the "Doctors'
Trial" focused on the horrific Nazi experiments on humans, stands as a pivotal document laying
down crucial ethical standards for conducting research with human subjects. These principles
were officially introduced in August 1947 as a component of the judges' decision.
At first, the Nuremberg Code wasn't widely acknowledged for its significance beyond its
response to the horrifying Nazi human experiments. However, its importance gradually became
apparent as it went on to influence the development of ethical standards for researchers. Essential
principles from the Nuremberg Code found their way into various documents such as the
Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, and the United States' Common Rule.
- The ten points of the Nuremberg Code (UNC Research, 2022):
1. In research involving human subjects, obtaining their voluntary and informed consent is
crucial. This means individuals should have the capacity to consent, make decisions freely
without any pressure or manipulation, and fully understand the experiment's details, risks, and
potential effects on their health. Anyone conducting the experiment is personally responsible for
ensuring the quality of consent and cannot delegate this duty.
2. The experiment should have a clear purpose - to produce valuable results that benefit society,
results that can't be obtained through other, unnecessary, or arbitrary study methods.
3. The experiment designs should be informed by forgoing animal research and a comprehensive
understanding of the study of disease or problem. The expected outcomes should reasonably
justify conducting the experiment.
4. The experiment should be carried out in a way that minimizes both physical and mental harm,
avoiding any unnecessary suffering or injury.
5. Experiments should not be conducted if there is a reasonable expectation of death or severe
injury, except in cases where the physicians conducting the experiment are also participating as
subjects, and even then, such risks should be carefully considered.
6. The risk taken in an experiment should always align with the importance of addressing a
humanitarian problem.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7. Proper preparations and facilities must be given to protect participants from any potential
harm, no matter how unlikely.
8. Only scientifically qualified individuals should conduct the experiment, and they should
exercise the highest level of skill and care throughout the entire process.
9. Throughout the experiment, the human participant should have the freedom to stop it if they
reach a physical or mental condition where they believe continuing is no longer possible.
10. While conducting the experiment, the overseeing scientist must be ready to halt it at any
point if they have genuine reasons to believe, based on their expertise and good judgment, that
continuing the experiment could lead to harm, disability, or death for the participant.
Overall, the Nuremberg Code marked a significant value in acknowledging and upholding the
basic rights of individuals in terms of research (
Nuremberg Code - New World Encyclopedia
,
n.d.).
5) Why did the WMA consider the
Declaration of Geneva
to be insufficient & issue a second
code of ethics in 1964 entitled the
Declaration of Helsinki
?
Answer- The World Medical Association (WMA) deemed the Geneva Declaration unsatisfactory
for a variety of reasons, prompting the publication of a second code of ethics, the Helsinki
Declaration, in 1964 (
WMA - the World Medical Association-WMA Declaration of Helsinki –
Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
, n.d.). Some of the key
reasons why the WMA considered the Declaration of Geneva to be insufficient:
-
Ethics in research: Ethical issues like taking consent, risk-benefit assessment and other
ethical issues rose into prominence and the Declaration of Geneva did not provide any
guidance on how to approach these issues in research.
-
Improvement in medical ethics: Over time, there was significant improvement in medical
ethics with new ethical guidelines and procedures. The Declaration of Helsinki combined
these expanded ethics into a single document.
-
Increase in clinical trials: With the advent of time, medical research became more
advanced with more clinical trials involving testing on humans. The former Declaration
of Geneva did not provide any details about ethical issues regarding the protection of
clinical trial participants.
-
Human Rights: The Declaration of Helsinki served to elaborate the importance of consent
of human clinical trial participants and make sure that the research is carried out ethically
(Peters, 2020).
-
Internationally relevant: As international collaborations in medical research increased, it
was necessary to have a single document that different countries could refer to regarding
medical research.
In other words, the Declaration of Helsinki was adopted by the WMA and then revised multiple
times to include more ethical concerns over the years. However, it still remains a pivotal
document as a reference for human research for researchers, organizers, and other medical
companies (Goodyear et al., 2007).
6) In the article Dubious
Premises
..., the Nazi defendants used these few arguments to
justify their actions:
1) as physicians they were morally neutral bystanders;
2) the state and the law superseded ethics;
3) they were acting for the good of the whole nation and society;
4) their acts were really compassionate;
5) ethics is relative to persons and times.
Choose 3 of these rationales and explain, in the context of biological research involving
human subjects, how Kant would challenge them.
Answer- If Kant were to challenge these arguments, they would be as follows:
As physicians they were morally neutral bystanders:
Kant would probably argue that just
because a person is a physician, they are not excused from the sense of moral responsibility and
understanding what is ethically correct and what is not. Everyone must abide by their own sense
of morality, responsibility and ethics, no matter how imposing the situation is, or if the cause is
for the greater good. Kant would likely not agree that it is possible for physicians to be morally
neutral bystanders while watching innocents being harmed in an inhuman way and the
physicians should have upheld their ethical principles in the face of these experiments, no matter
what is demanded from them professionally.
They were acting for the good of the whole nation and society:
Kant would rightfully argue
that “greater good” does not come at the cost of violating the rights and autonomy of individuals.
Each person has their own dignity and autonomy, and no matter how beneficial the act might be
for the society, it is unethical and unacceptable because Kant believed that individuals must
always be treated with dignity, even if the end of the experiments is for the greater good.
Their acts were really compassionate:
Kant would likely ask what defines “compassionate”.
This is because “compassionate” cannot mean harming, forcing or violating an individual’s
autonomy and dignity for the sake of socially important experiments. Only the intention behind
the action cannot determine compassion, the actual action cannot violate someone’s ethical
rights. Kant would argue that true compassion would uphold the rights of the prisoners in the
face of these experiments.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
References
Goodyear, M. D., Krleža-Jerić, K., & Lemmens, T. (2007). The Declaration of Helsinki.
BMJ
,
335
(7621), 624–625. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39339.610000.be
Historian examines U.S. ethics in Nuremberg Medical Trial tactics | Cornell Chronicle
. (1996,
December 5). Cornell Chronicle.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1996/12/historian-examines-us-ethics-nuremberg-medical
-trial-tactics
Malloryk. (2020). The Nuremberg Trial and its Legacy.
The National WWII Museum |
New Orleans
.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/the-nuremberg-trial-and-its-legacy
Nuremberg Code - New World Encyclopedia
. (n.d.).
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nurember
g_Code
Oosterhuis, H. (2019). Albert Moll’s Ambivalence about Homosexuality and His
Marginalization as a Sexual Pioneer.
Journal of the History of Sexuality
,
28
(1), 1–43.
https://doi.org/10.7560/jhs28101
Peters, B., MD. (2020). What is the Declaration of Helsinki?
Verywell Health
.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/declaration-of-helsinki-4846525
Shuster, E. (2018). American doctors at the Nuremberg Medical Trial.
American Journal
of Public Health
,
108
(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2017.304104
Sigusch, V. (2012). The Sexologist Albert Moll – between Sigmund Freud and Magnus
Hirschfeld.
Medical History
,
56
(2), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2011.32
UNC Research. (2022, October 28).
Nuremberg Code - UNC Research
.
https://research.unc.edu/human-research-ethics/resources/ccm3_019064/
WMA - The World Medical Association-WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles
for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
. (n.d.). WMA - the World Medical
Association-WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research
Involving Human Subjects.
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for
-me
dical-research-involving-human-subjects/