Human Guinea Pigs and the Ethics of Experimentation: The
BMJ (British Medical Journal). 1996 Dec 7; 313(7070): 1467-1470.
Though the Nuremberg medical trial was a United States military tribunal, British forensic pathologists supplied extensive evidence for the trial. The BMJ had a correspondent at the trial, and he endorsed a utilitarian legitimation of clinical experiments, justifying the medical research carried out under Nazism as of long term scientific benefit despite the human costs. The British supported an international medical commission to evaluate the ethics and scientific quality of German research. Medical opinions differed over whether German medical atrocities should be given publicity or treated in confidence. The BMJ's correspondent warned against medical researchers being taken over by a totalitarian state, and these arguments were used to oppose the NHS and any state control over medical research.
Attitudes; Communicable Diseases; Consent; Editorial Policies; Ethics; Evaluation; Fraud; Health; Historical Aspects; Human Experimentation; Immunization; Informed Consent; International Aspects; Investigators; Misconduct; Medical Research; National Socialism; Nutrition; Nazism; Organizations; Physicians; Politics; Prisoners; Professional Organizations; Research; Researchers; Review; Scientific Misconduct; Socialism; State Control; Volunteers;
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Human Guinea Pigs and the Ethics of Experimentation: The BMJ's Correspondent at the Nuremberg Medical Trial Weindling, Paul (1996-12-07)
Ozonoff, David (1977-03)
Pappworth, M.H. (1968)