American Doctors at the Nuremberg Medical Trial.

Three Hippocratic physicians played critical roles in the prosecution of 23 Nazi doctors charged with murder and torture for conducting lethal medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. Two of the physicians, Leopold Alexander and Andrew C. Ivy, were Americans, and the other, Werner Leibbrandt, was German. At the 70th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial it is fitting to recall the three's influences and contributions to the formulation of strict research ethics rules, known as the Nuremberg Code. Their contributions help us better understand why they insisted on strict research rules and yet ultimately were unable to apply these rules to their own research. Exploring their contributions at Nuremberg may help us appreciate the continuing difficulty physician-researchers have with accepting public regulation of research.

American bioethics: many beginnings, but one origin.

Bioethics is an American invention. This sweeping statement is meant to certify the birthplace of bioethics and to secure possession of a new field. However, it is one thing to name a place of birth to appropriate afield; it is another to identify its actual date of birth, which would also designate the events that prompted its creation. In this article we explore the alternative birthdays of American bioethics with an aim of identifying its actual origin (in the context of its many beginnings) which, we suggest, helps to set its human rights agenda for future work.

Human cloning: category, dignity, and the role of bioethics.

Human cloning has been simultaneously a running joke for massive worldwide publicity of fringe groups like the Raelians, and the core issue of an international movement at the United Nations in support of a treaty to ban the use of cloning techniques to produce a child (so called reproductive cloning). Yet, even though debates on human cloning have greatly increased since the birth of Dolly, the clone sheep, in 1997, we continue to wonder whether cloning is after all any different from other methods of medically assisted reproduction, and what exactly makes cloning an 'affront to the dignity of humans.' Categories we adopt matter mightily as they inform but can also misinform and lead to mistaken and unproductive decisions. And thus bioethicists have a responsibility to ensure that the proper categories are used in the cloning debates and denounce those who try to win the ethical debate through well-crafted labels rather than well-reasoned argumentations. But it is as important for bioethicists to take a position on broad issues such as human cloning and species altering interventions. One 'natural question' would be, for example, should there be an international treaty to ban human reproductive cloning?