I think i would be interested in the standard bioethical issues if i were Jewish living in Hitler's time.

Thats actually a very interesting chapter in bioethics. There is an issue that I remember about Nazi experiments on jewish prisoners in Concentration camps. I dont remember the specifics, but apparently the Nazis had experimented on the prisoners in realtion to atmosphereic tolerances, cold and heat tolerances, etc. Pretty much everything was tested on these people. But there was an issue which was brought up around ten years ago as to whether or not modern medicine should use the advances gained by the Nazi experiments. For example, the Nazi's had needed a way to combat hypothermia or something like that because they needed to find out how to quickly save downed pilots in the cold nordic oceans. Well, they found out how to do it, and at a substantial loss of human life in the process. The issue comes nowadays becuase apparently the method discovered by the Nazi's is far more efficient than what we have now. So do we use a discovery made at the cost of many lives to save potentially many more?

There are some very rare circumstances in which the Nazi medical experiments generated information that just never would have been learned otherwise. Like how many seconds it takes to produce full thickness burns in water of 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 degrees C after immersion of a limb. Or the time it takes to die from hypothermia or to acquire frostbite at various temperatures.

The practical medical merits of this information are not zero, but they're also not exactly breakthroughs.

But the other 99% of the Nazis' medical experiments were either garbage pseudoscience or experiments in mass sterilization or euthanasia techniques.

Furthermore, even by the standards of the day they used abysmally poor research design -- taking marasmic, starving people and conducting uncontrolled clinical trials would have almost no applicability beyond the study population. To say nothing of the complete absence of consent or of pain relief. Not that it mattered -- the subjects who survived the experiments were all gassed or shot anyway.

The Nazi doctors were in many cases professed sadists who in addition to their experiments took part in selection for the gas chambers, and were lock-step Nazi idealogues. Their experiments were a vehicle of cruelty and power FAR beyond their scientific design.

Certailny use the advances made by the Nazi's experiments, (i hope you mean the results and not practices), what i mean is only if it does not cost more human life, (none whatsoever), as it's already done and why not make use of it especially if it helps, (but as I said as long as noone dies), the only issues here are with your own consience. But if you were to use more human life remember do unto others what you would have done to you [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Jerry/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

Surely there has to be other ways. I do understand why we tested on animals, (although not morally agree with it), in order for the greater good but i would at least make every effort to look for alternatives, it is only by pure chance that you are not in said sacrificed life's shoes so i ask you would you be willing to die for the greater good if there was an alternative, how do you know there is not another way?

I think it would be nice to be asked do you mind being sacrifced for the greater good out of respect, it's not nice to take someone's life in any sense, (murder, sacrifice, manslaughter etc), because you havent got the right only in extreme self-defence.

There are some very rare circumstances in which the Nazi medical experiments generated information that just never would have been learned otherwise. Like how many seconds it takes to produce full thickness burns in water of 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 degrees C after immersion of a limb. Or the time it takes to die from hypothermia or to acquire frostbite at various temperatures.

The practical medical merits of this information are not zero, but they're also not exactly breakthroughs.

But the other 99% of the Nazis' medical experiments were either garbage pseudoscience or experiments in mass sterilization or euthanasia techniques.

Furthermore, even by the standards of the day they used abysmally poor research design -- taking marasmic, starving people and conducting uncontrolled clinical trials would have almost no applicability beyond the study population. To say nothing of the complete absence of consent or of pain relief. Not that it mattered -- the subjects who survived the experiments were all gassed or shot anyway.

The Nazi doctors were in many cases professed sadists who in addition to their experiments took part in selection for the gas chambers, and were lock-step Nazi idealogues. Their experiments were a vehicle of cruelty and power FAR beyond their scientific design.

But I think the whole thing to keep in mind is the dangerous slippery slope things like the Nazi concentration camp experiments create. If you take the benefits from medical advancement made through illegal means, you in a sense permitting the means of achieving that end. Do the ends necessitate the means? This is a very tough question and there is not any real precise answer to it which is precisely why it is still a hot topic in bioethics. It is in many senses a matter of principle. And the cost of human lives must also include more than the loss of it, like the maiming of a person or the psychological damages inflicted on that person. I would not agree with the only hindrance is ones conscience. The Nazis in their own twisted way had a relative version of a conscience and permitted the inhumane treatment of concentration camp prisoners. Heck, Americans too had their own twisted sense of relative states of conscience, black civil rights for example? like the ever so brilliant separate but equal thing.

As to the greater good, that is a relative mater. My sense of the greater good is very different from your version of the greater good. And a greater good which incorporates a smaller evil is a pseudo-good. Now if you volunteer for subhuman treatment, that's a whole different conundrum.



I found this article trying to find the case study about the hypothermia experiments.

Nazi Data on Hypothermia Termed Unscientific - The New York Times

Probably one of the more horrible aspects, at least in terms of the Nazi hypothermia experiments is (like you had mentioned about poor research design) is that the data collected was scientifically unsound. So the human sacrifice, which was apparently more than 300 people, was essentially for nothing. But I think that I would be of the opinion not to use the research gained by these horrible means... even if it meant deriving some greater medical discovery for the data collected. Also, I agree that any "scientific" advancement from Nazi experimentation seems to have always had a degree of sadism in it. Especially considering the nature of some of these scientists, like Dr. Rascher.

How can you be permitting the means when it is already been permitted?

This stuff is hard to read, and the more you know about it -- and particularly if you grow up in a family that survived and witnessed it -- the more horrible you realize it was.

But how can we talk about ethics without having a framework? Modernity has taught us that our (humanity's) capacity for cruelty is worse than our imagination and reason would ever predict.

not to change the subject... but i've decided to take your suggestion aedes and write about the commmercialization of prescription medication. to my enjoyment there are lots of articles about it out there which equals easy research. yay!

Does having such an enormous capacity prevent one creating a framework. Even though it is worse than we would ever predict does that actually stop us trying to create a framework that we can make ethics work?