PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Nuremberg Trials”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1996

The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial. A reappraisal.

The Nuremberg Code includes 10 principles to guide physician-investigators in experiments involving human subjects. These principles, particularly the first principle on "voluntary consent," primarily were based on legal concepts because medical codes of ethics existent at the time of the Nazi atrocities did not address consent and other safeguards for human subjects. The US judges who presided over the proceedings did not intend the Code to apply only to the case before them, to be a response to the atrocities committed by the Nazi physicians, or to be inapplicable to research as it is customarily carried on in medical institutions. Instead, a careful reading of the judgment suggests that they wrote the Code for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.

Codes of Ethics↗
PubMed2006

Psychiatry and political-institutional abuse from the historical perspective: the ethical lessons of the Nuremberg Trial on their 60th anniversary.

Sixty years ago at the Nuremberg Trials, 23 Nazi leaders were tried as war criminals, in what was known as "The Doctors' Trial". This trial exposed a perverse system of the criminal use of medicine in the fields of public health and human research. These practices, in which racial hygiene constituted one of the fundamental principles and euthanasia programmes were the most obvious consequence, violated the majority of known bioethical principles. Psychiatry played a central role in these programmes, and the mentally ill were the principal victims. The aim of the present work is to review, from the historical perspective, the antecedents of the shameful euthanasia programmes for the mentally ill, the procedures involved in their implementation and the use of mentally ill people as research material. The Nuremberg Code, a direct consequence of the Doctors' Trial, is considered to be the first international code of ethics for research with human beings, and represented an attempt to prevent any repeat of the tragedy that occurred under Nazism. Nevertheless, the last 60 years have seen continued government-endorsed psychiatric abuse and illegitimate use of psychoactive drugs in countries such as the Soviet Union or China, and even in some with a long democratic tradition, such as the United States. Even today, the improper use of psychiatry on behalf of governments is seen to be occurring in numerous parts of the globe: religious repression in China, enforced hospitalization in Russia, administration of psychoactive drugs in immigrant detention centres in Australia, and the application of the death penalty by lethal injection and psychiatric participation in coercive interrogation at military prisons, in relation to the USA. The Declaration of Madrid in 1996 constituted the most recent attempt to eradicate, from the ethical point of view, these horrendous practices. Various strategies can be used to combat such abuses, though it is uncertain how effective they are in preventing them.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed1996

US medical researchers, the Nuremberg Doctors Trial, and the Nuremberg Code. A review of findings of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments.

The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), established to review allegations of abuses of human subjects in federally sponsored radiation research, was charged with identifying appropriate standards to evaluate the ethics of cold war radiation experiments. One central question for ACHRE was to determine what role, if any, the Nuremberg Code played in the norms and practices of US medical researchers. Based on the evidence from ACHRE's Ethics Oral History Project and extensive archival research, we conclude that the Code, at the time it was promulgated, had little effect on mainstream medical researchers engaged in human subjects research. Although some clinical investigators raised questions about the conduct of research involving human beings, the medical profession did not pursue this issue until the 1960s.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed1996

Human guinea pigs and the ethics of experimentation: the BMJ's correspondent at the Nuremberg medical trial.

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.

Editorial Policies↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The suppressed legacy of Nuremberg.

The story of patient self-determination cannot be told without the Nuremberg trials. Patient autonomy was the first criterion enunciated by the Nuremberg judges and has served as a touchstone for human subject research and patient care ever since. Yet this ideal was in an important sense irrelevant at the moment it was originally proclaimed.

Decision Making↗
PubMed1995

Research ethics--a brief historical review to 1965.

Most discussions on modern research ethics--particularly the formation of research ethics committees (institutional review boards)--focus on the revelations of the dreadful practices in the Nazi concentration camps at the Nuremberg trial after the second world war, with the subsequent production of the Nuremberg and Helsinki Codes. In fact, however, these trials were not pivotal: there was a long history of such concerns, going back at least to the 1830s, when William Beaumont introduced a contract with his patient Alexis St Martin, as well as the later part of the century when the celebrated leprosy worker Hansen was prosecuted in Bergen for having experimented on a patient without her consent, losing his post as a result. Probably, had it not been for the entry of the USA into the First World War, public indignation at the growing number of reports of unethical experimentation in public hospitals would have resulted in regulations, while official codes were introduced in Prussia at the turn of the century and in Berlin again in 1931. Nevertheless, the impetus for modern developments came principally from the furore aroused by the proselytising of two physicians: Henry Beecher, an anesthesiologist at Harvard, and Maurice Pappworth in London, whose respective books Experimentation in Man and Human Guinea Pigs, documented case histories of egregiously less than ethical research practices that went largely unquestioned by other clinical research workers. Here I shall discuss the reactions to and influence of some of these episodes, as well as more recent developments.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed1989

Informed consent in the practice of acupuncture.

Early records reveal a parental, beneficent attitude, but an uncommunicative approach to the patient. The Nuremberg trials of 1946 demonstrated the need for ultimate responsibility of the physician, and for a well-informed, consenting patient in experimental procedures (Nuremberg Code of 1947). A later report, the Belmont Report (1975) emphasized the difference between therapeutic research and research unrelated to improving the patient's state of health. Acupuncture has the status of an experimental modality, and requires the informed consent discussion and signature on the form by the patient for each procedure.

Acupuncture Therapy↗
PubMed1998

Fifty years after the Nuremberg Nazi Doctors' Trial: reviewing how the laws of the Third Reich applied to individuals with oral clefts.

The Nazi Doctors' Trial, held in the city of Nuremberg 50 years ago, is a landmark in the history of medicine and science. For the first time, the horrors inflicted by a group of German scientists on innocent victims became widely known. Most of the defendants received sentences that ranged from relatively short imprisonment to death. The Trial also provided elements to develop standards for permissible medical experimentation, known as the Nuremberg Code. The atrocities judged in the Nazi Doctors' Trial, however, were not isolated. They were part of an overall eugenic system that encouraged euthanasia, compulsory sterilization, and selective marriages based on "genetic health" and "racial hygiene." Individuals with oral clefts were considered subject to these laws and suffered their consequences. This paper describes the main features of the Trial, reviews the state of knowledge on oral clefts in the 1930s and 1940s, presents how the laws of the Third Reich impacted the lives of individuals with oral clefts, and speculates on the implications of past and present eugenic policies in the future of humankind.

Child↗
PubMed1996

Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code.

The issue of ethics with respect to medical experimentation in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s was crucial at the Nuremberg trials and related trials of doctors and public health officials. Those involved in horrible crimes attempted to excuse themselves by arguing that there were no explicit rules governing medical research on human beings in Germany during the period and that research practices in Germany were not different from those in allied countries. In this context the Nuremberg code of 1947 is generally regarded as the first document to set out ethical regulations in human experimentation based on informed consent. New research, however, indicates that ethical issues of informed consent in guidelines for human experimentation were recognised as early as the nineteenth century. These guidelines shed light on the still contentious issue of when the concepts of autonomy, informed consent, and therapeutic and non-therapeutic research first emerged. This issue assumes renewed importance in the context of current attempts to assess liability and responsibility for the abuse of people in various experiments conducted since the second world war in the United States, Canada, Russia, and other nations.

Codes of Ethics↗