Protection of Human Subjects
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In recent years there has been increasing concern in the literature regarding the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects in biomedical, behavioral, and social science research. The initial concern seems to have developed with reference to biomedical research, perhaps because potential damage to the subjects is more clear-cut. The issue was raised after World War II at the Nuremburg trials because of Nazi experimentation on human subjects. The Hippocratic Oath requires first that physicians do no harm, but there is ample evidence that medical doctors have carried out risky and at times fatal research on human subjects without their consent or even their awareness in settings more normal than the Nazi concentration camps (Katz 281-291). It was outrage at the Nazi experiments, however, experiments performed on defenseless political and war prisoners, that led to the Nuremburg trials and that made explicit for the first time in the Nuremburg Code the ethical principles for biomedical research on human beings. This code also formed the basis for the Declaration of Helsinki adopted by the World Medical Association in 1964 and the "Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Investigation" adopted by the American Medical Association in 1966 (Bower and de Gasparis, 3). In the 1960s and 1970s, a number of ethically questionable research designs came under public scrutiny, raising the issue of ethics for all types of research. The most infamous of these studi
. . .
espite what they were doing (Bettelheim ix).
This statement was written as an introduction to a book by Dr. Niyiszli, who himself worked as a doctor at Auschwitz, and Bettelheim refers to this same attitude with reference to this individual when he writes:
The same business-as-usual attitude that enabled Dr. Nissl to function as a doctor in the camp, that motivated him to volunteer his help to the SS, enabled millions of Jews to live in ghettos where they not only worked for the Nazis but selected fellow Jews for them to sent to the gas chamber (Bettelheim ix).
The killing of the disabled was not confined to Jews or even to other prisoners in concentration camps, and Germans as well were killed by medical personnel because they were seen as disabled.
One legacy of the Nuremberg Trials was the Nuremberg Charter, with its emphasis in the third count of Crimes against Humanity: "The charge of Crimes against Humanity expressed the revulsion against Nazi attitudes and methods which had been so strongly felt by those who drew up the Charter" (Tusa and Tusa 87). Article Eight precluded a defense by claiming that the accused had only obeyed orders by superiors, and denying this defense has often been called the "Nuremberg Princip
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Jones Tuskegee, Lifton Nazis, Tuskegee Experiment, Simpson Olansky, Health Service, Administrative Manual, War II, Tuskegee Study, Jay Lifton, Medical Gleichschaltung, medical personnel, tuskegee experiment, human subjects, schuman simpson olansky, simpson olansky, war ii, world war, schuman simpson, rivers schuman, rivers schuman simpson, public health, informed consent, world war ii, social science research, life unworthy life,
Approximate Word count = 3606
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Protection of Human Subjects
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
