Advertisement

Holocaust as an Inflection Point in the Development of Bioethics and Research Ethics

  • Stacy GallinEmail author
  • Ira Bedzow
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Modern research ethics arose as a response to the scientific and medical communities’ participation in the Holocaust. The Holocaust remains the only example of medically sanctioned genocide and thus can provide critical lessons regarding the importance of valuing basic ethical principles ahead of the potential for scientific progress in the contemporary context of research ethics. This chapter will explore the trajectory of research ethics using the Holocaust as an inflection point. It will briefly describe the difference between medical and research ethics before and after the Holocaust and then show how the lessons of the Holocaust not only influenced the creation of the Nuremberg Code but also the subsequent development of the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (The Common Rule), and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects.

Keywords

Research ethics Holocaust Nuremberg Code Bioethics 

References

  1. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (1996) The human radiation experiments: final report of the President’s advisory committee. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Annas GJ, Grodin MA (1992a) Introduction. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–11Google Scholar
  3. Annas GJ, Grodin MA (1992b) Where do we go from here? In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 307–314Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1979) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Beecher HK (1966) Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med 274(24):1354–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruns F, Chelouche T (2017) Lectures on inhumanity: teaching medical ethics in German medical schools under Nazism. Ann Intern Med 166(8):591–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caplan AL (2010) The stain of silence: Nazi ethics and bioethics. In: Rubenfeld S (ed) Medicine after the holocaust: from the master race to the human genome and beyond. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen JJ (2010) Medical professionalism: lessons from the holocaust. In: Rubenfeld S (ed) Medicine after the holocaust: from the master race to the human genome and beyond. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen IG, Lynch HF (2014) Introduction. In: Cohen IG, Lynch HF (eds) Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis AL, Hurley EA (2014) Setting the stage: the past and present of human subjects research regulations. In: Cohen IG, Lynch HF (eds) Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Health and Human Services (1991) Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Emanuel EJ (2003a) Scandals and tragedies of research with human participants: Nuremberg, the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, Beecher, and Tuskegee. In: Emanuel EJ, Crouch RA, Arras JS et al (eds) Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research: readings and commentary. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  13. Emanuel EJ (2003b) Ethical and regulatory guidance for research with humans. In: Emanuel EJ, Crouch RA, Arras JS et al (eds) Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research: readings and commentary. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 25–28Google Scholar
  14. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C (2000) What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283(20):2701–2711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faden RR, Lederer SE, Moreno JD (2003) U.S. medical researchers, the Nuremberg Doctors Trial, and the Nuremberg Code: a review of the findings of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. In: Emanuel EJ, Crouch RA, Arras JD et al (eds) Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research: readings and commentary. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 7–11Google Scholar
  16. Feldman HL (2014) What’s right about the “medical model” in human subjects research regulation. In: Cohen IG, Lynch HF (eds) Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grodin MA (1992a) Historical origins of the Nuremberg Code. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 121–144Google Scholar
  18. Grodin MA (1992b) Judgment and aftermath. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 94–104Google Scholar
  19. Katz J (2003) Human experimentation and human rights. In: Emanuel EJ, Crouch RA, Arras JD et al (eds) Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research: readings and commentary. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 210–213Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Levine RJ (2003) Research and practice. In: Emanuel EJ, Crouch RA, Arras JD et al (eds) Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research: readings and commentary. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 103–107Google Scholar
  22. Nuremberg Military Tribunal, from U.S. v. Karl Brandt et al (1947) The Nuremberg CodeGoogle Scholar
  23. Pellegrino E (2014) Codes, virtue, and professionalism. In: Sugarman J, Sulmasy P (eds) Methods in medical ethics. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 91–107Google Scholar
  24. Proctor RN (1992) Nazi doctors, racial medicine, and human experimentation. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 17–31Google Scholar
  25. Rhodes R (2014) De minimis risk: a suggestion for a new category of research risk. In: Cohen IG, Lynch HF (eds) Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schrag ZM (2014) What is this thing called research? In: Cohen IG, Lynch HF (eds) Human subjects research regulation: perspectives on the future. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stark L (2011) Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor T (1992) Opening statement of the prosecution, December 9, 1946. In: Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds) The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 67–93Google Scholar
  29. The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (2002) International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  30. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979) The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. United States Department of Health and Human Services (2018) Office for human research protections. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/index.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2018
  32. World Medical Association (1964) Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. FinlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maimonides Institute for Medicine, Ethics and the HolocaustFreeholdUSA
  2. 2.Biomedical Ethics and Humanities ProgramNew York Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Center for Human Dignity in Bioethics, Health and the HolocaustMisericordia UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations