From 1946 to 1947, the Nuremberg War Crime Trials took place, withfifteen of twenty-three German physicians and research scientist-physicians found guilty of criminal human experimentation projects. The trial court attempted to establish a set of principles of human experimentation that could serve as a code of research ethics. The result was the Nuremberg Code, which attempted to provide a natural law-based set of universal ethical principles. Looking beyond the Nuremberg Code and applying it to modern medical research ethics, there are many challenges that it poses. Many have argued that the Code tries to provide for all unforeseen events, which restricts the researcher by requiring him to anticipate every situation, demanding the impossible. The most important contribution of the Code is the first principle, which says that voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The subject involved should have legal capacity to give consent, should have free power of choice, as well as sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the experiment. This restricts that populations upon which some experiment may be conducted, since many do not have “legal capacity”. For instance, studies of mental illness and children’s diseases have been curtailed because neither of these populations has the legal capacity to give consent. Another group of people, prisoners, are never really able to give voluntary consent since they might be enticed by financial rewards, special treatment, and the hope of early release in exchange for participating in the human experimentation projects. British biostatitcian Sir Austin Bradford Hill also questioned whether it was important to inform a research subject who was receiving a placebo since it does... ... middle of paper ... ...n such that it was a physician’s duty or role to act in the best interest of their patient and safeguard the health of the people. It was a set of professional guidelines written by physicians for physicians as opposed to the Code, which was written by jurists for use in a legal trial. The Declaration of Helsinki was also a much longer document than the Nuremberg Code and thus laid out more principles and with less room for uncertainty. The two sets of principles are just ethical principles and nothing more. Neither of them has any legally binding authority or means of enforcement. The adequate protection of human research subjects is not guaranteed under these codes, we just have to trust that they are being treated properly. The Code should be rewritten so that there is some enforcement of the principles instead of just hoping that doctors will behave ethically.
Cohen, Baruch C. “Jewish Law-Articles.” Jewish Law-Articles (The Ethics of Using Medical Data from Nazi Experiments). Web. 17 Jan. 2014.
Bioethics is the use of morals in science. If there had been more bioethics in Henrietta Lacks’s case, her doctors may have used their morals to not take the cells from her body without her permission or at least let her family know they had. Sixteen years before her case, the Nuremberg Code had been created which stated 10 codes of ethics to be used during human experimentation. However, it was not a law and few doctors even knew it existed.The issue of informed consent was also brought up in 1957 but doctors testified it was unnecessary. However on June 30th, 1974,17 years later, a law was passed requiring informed consent for all federally funded research. The issue of bioethics affected HeLa and many began to doubt if the doctors at Johns Hopkins had really been ethical. In conclusion, Henrietta Lacks and her “immortal” cells helped the field of science and its future
During the process of research, professionals collect data or identifiable private information through intervention or interaction. While this is a vital part of the scientific and medical fields, every precaution must be taken by researchers to protect the participants' rights. Ethics, outlined by the Belmont report; requirements, described by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); and regulations, laid out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are verified by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This procedure assures that all human rights are safeguarded during the entire research process.
In the United States, the basis for ethical protection for human research subjects in clinical research trials are outlined by the Belmont Report developed in the late 1970’s. This document, published by the Nation Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, highlights three important basic principles that are to be considered when any clinical trial will involve human research subjects. They are; respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. (Chadwick & Gunn, 2004)
Those who were affected by the testing in hospitals, prisons, and mental health institutions were the patients/inmates as well as their families, Henrietta Lacks, the doctors performing the research and procedures, the actual institutions in which research was being held, and the human/health sciences field as a whole. Many ethical principles can be applied to these dilemmas: Reliance on Scientific Knowledge (1.01), Boundaries of Competence (1.02), Integrity (1.04), Professional and Scientific Relationships (1.05), Exploitative Relationships (1.07, a), Responsibility (2.02), Rights and Prerogatives of Clients (2.05), Maintaining Confidentiality (2.06), Maintaining Records (2.07), Disclosures (2.08), Treatment/Intervention Efficacy (2.09), Involving Clients in Planning and Consent (4.02), Promoting an Ethical Culture (7.01), Ethical Violations by Others and Risk of Harm (7.02), Avoiding False or Deceptive Statements (8.01), Conforming with Laws and Regulations (9.01), Characteristics of Responsible Research (9.02), Informed Consent (9.03), and Using Confidential Information for Didactic or Instructive Purposes (9.04), and Debriefing (9.05). These particular dilemmas were not really handled until much later when laws were passed that regulated the way human subjects could be used for research. Patients
In July of 1974 The National Research Act was signed into law. Through this act, The Belmont Report was developed over 4 year period of time that included an intense four day conference followed by monthly meetings until it was completed in April of 1979. The Belmont Report sets out to define the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The report was established prior to Barney Clark and the artificial heart and therefore was the guidelines that the doctors and researchers had to follow. The report highlights three essential ethical elements that are pertinent in human research and their applications. It was the professional responsibility of the doctors and researchers involved to abide by previously established ethical guidelines.
In early October 1945, the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia issued an indictment against 24 men and six organizations.2 The indictment appointed against these men and organizations contained four courts: conspiracy to wage aggressive war, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The trial at Nuremberg opened on November 20, 1945.3 For judgemen...
Judgment at Nuremberg The Nuremberg trials took place between 1945 and 1949 and were used to judge the acts of over a hundred judges accused of committing war crimes. The movie "Trials at Nuremberg" dealt specifically with the justice trials. The justice trials adjudicated the criminal responsibility of judges accused of enforcing immoral, unjust, and inhumane laws set by the Nazi party. =
The enticement of these scientific practices repeatedly trump any of Victor’s good conscience and results in the wide range of prejudiced behaviour that is unfairly directed towards the monster. A similar mindset can be witnessed by the researchers and doctors in “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, who tested cancer related tests on the uninformed prisoners in the Ohio Penitentiary, ignored the risks that these tests may pose. The prisoners were convinced that they “deserved” these tests done on them, as they had harmed others in the past and the researchers knew full well that these tests had the potential for great harm, but didn’t get informed consent due to “any unnecessary fear” (Skloot 130). Additionally, this novel also mentions the Nuremberg Trials, a series of war tribunals centering on “conducting unthinkable research on Jews without consent” (Skloot 131), which had gathered historical significance due to it setting up the ethical code called the Nuremberg code. The advent of these laws illustrate how far humans have gone to gain more knowledge in the field of medicine and relates to the overall theme of Frankenstein, as they both emphasize the odious implications of rapidly advancing science. The monster’s and Victor’s situation is similar to that of the helpless Nuremberg
Immediately following World War II, the Allied leaders had a tough decision to make. They had to decide what to do with the hundreds of Nazi military criminals. The Allies decided to form an International Military Tribunal (IMT) in order to charge the Nazi criminals based on four areas of crimes: “Conspiracy to wage aggressive war, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity” (Timeline: The War in Europe and Its Aftermath N/A). This tribunal did not try those accused of similar crimes on the Allied side. These judgments were passed solely onto Nazi supporters and the tribunal considered the majority of the charges passed in the category of, “Crimes against humanity” (Holocaust History N/A).
The Nuremberg trial was built up to be the trial of the century. In the word's of Norman Birkett, who served as a British alternate judge: it was "the greatest trial in history" . The four most intriguing characters of this trial were of vast contradiction to each other; there was Herman Georing the relentless leader, Joachim von Ribbentrop the guilty and indecisive follower of Hitler, Hjalmar Schacth the arrogant financial wizard of the Rich and Albert Speer the remorseful head of armament and munitions. Three of the four allies wanted the Nazi leaders to be executed without a trial Winston Churchill said, "They should be rounded up and shot like dog's" but the Americans persuaded the other allies that a trial would be most beneficial from a public relations standpoint, so now with the allies agreed the stage for Nuremberg was set.
"Nazi Medical Experimentation: The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments." The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
Furthermore, human experimentation has not only expanded medical advancements, but it also enforced new laws. In an article written by Michael Carome, he discusses a seminal paper written and published by Dr. Henry Beecher about the new regulations for human experimentation. "Disclosures of unethical research such as those made by Beecher prompted the federal government four decades ago to issue regulations intended to protect human subjects involved in research and prevent unethical studies. These regulations, which were last updated in 1991, are based on three fundamental ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence and justice" (Carome). These regulations had not been put into place until the government was aware of them. Since there
In December 1946, the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg indicted 20 Nazi physicians and 3 administrators for their willing participation in carrying out the harmful research on unwilling human subjects. Thus, Nuremberg code was the first international code for the ethics to be followed during human subject research. It was permissible medical experiments implemented in August 1947. The code also provides few directives for clinical trials (3). Syphilis study at Tuskegee in 1974 was the most influential event that led to the HHS Policy for Protecti...
The reading on, “The ‘Four Principles’ Approach to Health Care Ethics” outlines the four principles of ethics. The reading first discusses the origins of principles and healthcare ethics. In the past, there were no rules on how physicians could treat their patient. In Europe and Asia they mainly focused on preventing disease and harm, while maximizing health benefits. During the 1970s and 1980s, principles for bioethics were formed. These principles were easy to understand and use for people with all different types of professional background. Beauchamp and Childress published a book called, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, which reviews the set of basic rules for bioethics. The rules are respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. Respect for autonomy means to recognize that the people have rights and choices.