The Pros And Cons Of Human Experimentation

In 1847, the American Medical Association founded the Code of Medical Ethics responsible for establishing the standards of physicians’ practices (source). However, this code did not include regulations involving human experimentation. Due to lack of regulation regarding consent and ethical research practices, Nazi doctors performed unethical and torturous experiments on concentration camp inmates. These practices ranged from immersing subjects into ice water for hours to record the effects of exposure to injecting the women prisoners with corrosive substances into their uterus to find new sterilization methods (source). Despite the widespread agreement of the unethical nature of these experiments, it is still in question whether the results
should be used by current researchers for beneficial purposes. Due to questionable scientific validity, incompetent Nazi physicians, and possible disrespect of the victims of the experiments, the results of the Nazi experiments should only be referred to when further research could result in saving lives. The majority of the results obtained can be interpreted as unscientific due to the violations of experimental requirements.
First, the subjects were not of proper health due to “suffering from weeks or months of inhumane treatment” (slate). This causes the results of the endurance experiments to be misconstrued because the subjects do not adequately represent the people intended to benefit from the study. Additionally, for experiment results to be accepted as fact in the scientific world, the procedure must be replicable. Because the experiments were not replicated before the introduction of the Nuremberg Code, the standard of ethical human experiments, the conclusions cannot be confirmed. Furthermore, the lack of scientific terminology and pressure from Reich leaders led to multiple reports of inconsistent data. Examples of measuring terms being manipulated include the following: “‘sample size’ meant truck load of Jews, ‘significance’ was an indication of misery, and ‘response rate’ was a measure of torment” (Jewish virtual library). The demand from Reich leaders caused the experimenters to adjust their findings in order to ensure their own safety. The combination of these various malpractices lead to invalid results that do not provide significant value to the scientific
community. Not surprisingly, these scientifically invalid experiments were conducted by incompetent and unqualified doctors. Despite being viewed as respected figures at the time, “the doctors who conducted these experiments were often undereducated and influenced by political ideology” (bioethics). Dr. Otto Prokop, Germany’s Forensic authority, was granted responsibility to evaluate Doctor Heissmeyer, one of the Nazi physicians in charge of a tuberculosis experiment. After his evaluation, he concluded that Heissmeyer was characterized by “his extraordinary lack of concern, add this to his gross and total ignorance in the field of immunology” (jewish virtual library). If the qualifications of the doctors in charge of the experiments is in question, how can the results of the experiments be accepted as valid conclusions? Even if some of the results appeared to serve as substantial basis for further research, the citation of the results could create feelings of disrespect for the victims and the entire Jewish community.
Some believe that publishing and acknowledging the data creates legitimization and acceptance (bioethics). Additionally, when addressing the Holocaust, “the Jewish community is unforgiving to those who find any redeeming merit from the Nazi horrors” (jewish virtual library). Attempting to find a positive outcome from the atrocious acts placed upon the Jews is seen as disgraceful in their community. Due to either a family member’s or their own personal experience with the experiments, the Jews do not view the results of the experiments as data. Susan Vigorito, a Holocaust survivor who was kept in a cage for an entire year at age 3 to be tested on, believes that “she is the real data, the living data” (jewish virtual
library). While the majority of these unethical and most invalid experiments were conducted by unqualified doctors and caused detrimental harm to the Jewish community, the results may be called upon for extreme circumstances. The validity of these experiments should be determined on a case-to-case basis in which censorship is the protocol for the majority of instances. However, in the rarity that these results could provide beneficial information for further research in order to save lives, it is a moral obligation to publish the results of the Nazi experiments. If the research is to be cited, the unethical manner utilized to achieve the data must be addressed while also paying respect to the victims of the experiments. By taking the appropriate precautions, the absolute horrors inflicted at the Nazi concentration camps could result with new meaningful value.