Racial Hygiene And The Victims Of Medical Experiments

The euthanasia of animals is a very problematic social issue in the world today. Approximately there are about 7.6 million companion animals that enter animal shelters each year. Of those, about 2.7 animals are euthanized, and cats have the highest rate, according to “The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals” (2017). When you hear the term euthanasia in reference to animals, you think of a painless process that ends the countless suffering your pet had to endure over the span of their lives. There are many reasons for which these animals are “put to sleep.” When most pet owners put their pets to sleep it is because their pets have incurable disease, painful illness, behavioral problems and are of old age. When an animal is suffering and is no longer able to recover, this process may be the most humane thing to do. However, euthanasia turns into murder when perfectly healthy animals are killed. Since there is an overpopulation of animals there are many animals left on the street wandering alone. When there isn’t any room for all these new animals being brought in from off the streets, shelters have no other option, but to euthanize. Each year more and more dogs and cats are born and sent into shelters, but for every animal being born another one has to leave and once the animal leave they are most likely going to be euthanized. No matter the situation animals are losing their lives for no clear reason.

Us as humans, to be able to express a bit of how we feel in words, and then to see them not being able to express their pain but scream of pain and agony, we should know when to stop right? But instead we push on and hurt a little more because a little more won't kill them right? But sometimes it does and leads to lots of pain before death. Because it was wrong when we did it to orphans, blacks G.I.s and gypsies and it wrong when we did it to animals! We can't explain what we're doing to them and if we could what would we say? You can't accurately apply the results to humans therefore it is unscientific. Because after this you know it's just plane wrong. In silence the suffer and in loneliness they die. This is why i have decided to protest against animal testing. Not only because it is painful but because it is wrong no animals should feel unloved or unworthy of living. Animal testing is wrong, help make it

The chapter on Nazi medical experiments in Chalmers’ book is one of the most fascinating chapters because it examines the different types of techniques that the Nazi’s used to sterilize men and women. Chalmers explains that women were particularly subject to medical experiments because the Nazis were obsessed with destroying inferior races and wanted to perfect the art of sterilization so no more undesirable elements would be born (Ibid 123). However, both men and women were subject to Nazi medical experiments like medical injections, X-Rays, and chemicals, which resulted in burnt skin, abnormalities, and death. Among these experimentations many chemical companies, doctors, and University professors supported the experiments being done on

To begin, the experimental use of animals in medical studies is unethical. These creatures are confined in isolated cages where they are deprived of necessary environmental elements. It is not uncommon that they undergo ghastly methods of experimentation; including the inhalation of toxic fumes, the burning of their skin, and the crushing of their spinal cords ("People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"). This information sheds light on the grim realities of animal experimentation. These creatures are living, breathing beings that do not deserve to be treated as they are nothing more than lab objects. Not only are they ripped from their natural habitats, but are forced to endure an irreversible psychological trauma . To put it in perspective, imagine a six-month-old child being taken from their parents and sent to a lab to undergo scientific experiments that could ultimately result in

A patient has to judge his or her own quality of life, making the action of assessing if a patient’s quality of life is so low that they should be considered for PAD. Although dogs and humans are very different creatures, anatomically and spiritually, PAD is the same concept of putting a dog to sleep. Both beings are loved by others greatly and both experience a low quality of life when they are ill. But why is it better to put dogs down when they are suffering, but it is not ethical for it to be done when a human is suffering? 7.6 million companionship animals were put down last year (2014) (ASPCA). The same idea and process are behind PAD. Physician Assisted Death is not abused by physicians, despite what many people believe PAD is very uncommon, even in states where it is legal. “Approximately 1 of 1,000 Oregonians obtain and use a lethal dose of medication; 17% personally considered it as an option.” (Lachman). But America is not the only place where is a controversy. “85% of 218 nurses in Australia carried out the request the physician’s request for active euthanasia” (Lachman), and “10,000 citizens of the Netherlands, where PAD is legal,

To what extents did Hitler’s love of racial purity go? Who was willing to meet these expectations? Where were these catastrophic results contained, if they were contained at all? The program was aptly named Lebensborn, or “fount of life”. Over 20,000 children came into the world as a result of the Lebensborn Program. The Lebensborn Program was an attempt to ensure Hitler’s Germanic empire, one of the most awful men in history headed this event, and Lebensborn spread like a virus over Europe.

Test subjects in medical experiments have always been a controversial topic, but this argument is often only thought of when animals come in to play. What about the humans who get tested on unwillingly, or people who do not possess the capability to consent to such procedures? They are also in need of someone to look out for them. Throughout time, many governments have done extreme testing to move forward their population’s health and for what they call the greater good. Yet, more often than not, these test have no rules or regulations. A moral code has been established slowly after many of these ghastly occurrences became known. Even to this day, we still have people trying to bypass ethical codes such as the Nuremberg code and the

The Nazi Party wanted to get rid of all who were not healthy enough to work. Contrary to this fear, there are important “safeguards” to prevent anything like the holocaust from happening with euthanasia or physician assisted suicide (Brock 59). According to a survey done by the Louis Finklestein Institute for social and Religious Research and HCD in February of 2007, fifty-four percent of the doctors who participated believe the government should not control or regulate physician-assisted suicide (Friedman 35). It should be a matter between the patient and his or her medical practitioner. Also, those who oppose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide may also fear those who are physically or mentally disabled may one day be grouped with those who are terminally ill (Friedman 62). This would not be a problem. Oregon's Death with Dignity Act has a safeguard―the patient must have a predicted lifespan of only 6 months to live to even qualify for being eligible to partake in using this act (Friedman 59). This safeguard is in place so neither the doctor nor the patient can falsely apply. Additionally, euthanasia for terminally ill children is still “morally repugnant” in many of the European countries today. This hatred for the euthanasia of children stems from the Nazis, who killed thousands of

The Nazi’s started a huge propaganda campaign against the mentally and physically disabled Germans. In 1939 and 1941, a program of mercy killing ordered by the state, led to murder, doctors and medical staff killing about 70,000 people. According to The Holocaust Explained, “They were viewed as a burden on society, as they were unable to work, and drained resources from the state.” The Physically and Mentally disabled did not fit into the Nazi’s stereotype of the pure Aryan. The pure Aryan is a race that has been used by people who promoted ideas about racial hierarchy. In July, 1933, the Nazi’s passed a law that allowed the sterilization of 350 men and women so they could not produce mutant and unusual children. Overall, the fact that the mentally and physically disabled were thought of as misplaced in th, changed the view on them at that

More details that lead to the racial grooming is when part of the sterilization sent the disabled people to concentration camps. At first, they were to be removed from society in order to keep the true German race going. The first major camp was in Dachau. Many doctors that were involved in determining who was a jew, were the ones who actually submitted the forms to the government. Their analysis often involved measuring the face to compare the..

Eugenics was the, in this case, American, practice of controlling the breeding of certain human traits, either favorable or unfavorable, by limiting women of the opportunity of being fertile. The practice of eugenics was mainly prominent from the 1930s (when the act consenting it was passed) to the 1960s, particularly in African American women with mental illness, and sometimes others. As it may be understood, this was right around the prime time of slavery and into segregation in America. Many particular cases that will be discussed later show the immorality of the trend and its effects on the people impacted by it. The rationale of the trend was that many slaveholders or racists found that some of the female blacks who had mental illness

Throughout history, people have consistently tried to prove that groups with inborn qualities can either vastly improve or degenerate different races over time. This rhetoric has been proven multiple times throughout the course of the last century in the United States and Nazi-reigned Germany. Supposedly, this rhetoric has been disproven throughout the United States; however, there are proven accounts that the United States government has recently supported this theory of sterilization of minorities by supporting the eugenics movement, which was not only in Nazi Germany, but also on United States soil. The topic of improving the genetic makeup of different races has not only just become a common theme for many modern day countries to use to make their societies more genetically fit. However, it has adopted the basis for current racism that is clearly apparent in today’s society. If improving genetic fitness was not a concern to past societies, then people in general would be a lot more open to interracial and cross-cultural relationships rather than completely disregarding the idea of dating someone that is visibly genetically different.

Historically speaking, the treatment of humans and animals has been poor in the name of research. Instances such as those occurring in Nuremburg and Tuskegee set forth a foundation for governance in research of human subjects. Respect of the individual’s autonomy and the beneficence must be demonstrated in the study.

Every year, millions of animals suffer through painful and unnecessary tests. Animals in laboratories all over the world live lives of deprivation, pain, isolation, and torture. Even though vast studies show that animal experimentation often lacks validity, leading to harmful human reactions, we still continue to use this method of experimentation, while many other less-expensive and more beneficial alternatives exist. Going beyond the issue of animal experimentation being morally wrong, this form of research is also hindering medical progress. Although the use of animals in laboratories is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans, people mistakenly believe that this immoral and unscientific method of experimentation is

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that