Beyond Nazi War Crimes Experiments: The Voluntary Consent Requirement of the Nuremberg Code at 70.

The year 2017 marks both the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code and the first major revisions of federal research regulations in almost 3 decades. I suggest that the informed consent provisions of the federal research regulations continue to follow the requirements of the Nuremberg Code. However, modifications are needed to the informed consent (and institutional review board) provisions to make the revised federal regulations more effective in promoting a genuine conversation between the researcher and the research subject. This conversation must take seriously both the therapeutic illusion and the desire of both the researcher and the research subject not to engage in sharing uncertainty.

The Nazi Physicians as Leaders in Eugenics and "Euthanasia": Lessons for Today.

This article, in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg, reflects on the Nazi eugenics and "euthanasia" programs and their relevance for today. The Nazi doctors used eugenic ideals to justify sterilizations, child and adult "euthanasia," and, ultimately, genocide. Contemporary euthanasia has experienced a progression from voluntary to nonvoluntary and from passive to active killing. Modern eugenics has included both positive and negative selective activities. The 70th anniversary of the Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg provides an important opportunity to reflect on the implications of the Nazi eugenics and "euthanasia" programs for contemporary health law, bioethics, and human rights. In this article, we will examine the role that health practitioners played in the promotion and implementation of State-sponsored eugenics and "euthanasia" in Nazi Germany, followed by an exploration of contemporary parallels and debates in modern bioethics. 1.

Unit 731 and moral repair.

Unit 731, a biological warfare research organisation that operated under the authority of the Imperial Japanese Army in the 1930s and 1940s, conducted brutal experiments on thousands of unconsenting subjects. Because of the US interest in the data from these experiments, the perpetrators were not prosecuted and the atrocities are still relatively undiscussed. What counts as meaningful moral repair in this case-what should perpetrators and collaborator communities do decades later? We argue for three non-ideal but realistic forms of moral repair: (1) a national policy in Japan against human experimentation without appropriate informed and voluntary consent; (2) the establishment of a memorial to the victims of Unit 731; and (3) US disclosure about its use of Unit 731 data and an apology for failing to hold the perpetrators accountable.

U.S. Complicity and Japan's Wartime Medical Atrocities: Time for a Response.

Shortly before and during the Second World War, Japanese doctors and medical researchers conducted large-scale human experiments in occupied China that were at least as gruesome as those conducted by Nazi doctors. Japan never officially acknowledged the occurrence of the experiments, never tried any of the perpetrators, and never provided compensation to the victims or issued an apology. Building on work by Jing-Bao Nie, this article argues that the U.S. government is heavily complicit in this grave injustice, and should respond in an appropriate way in order to reduce this complicity, as well as to avoid complicity in future unethical medical experiments. It also calls on other U.S. institutions, in particular the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, to urge the government to respond, or to at least inform the public and initiate a debate about this dark page of American and Japanese history.

U.S. responses to Japanese wartime inhuman experimentation after World War II.

In 1945-46, representatives of the U.S. government made similar discoveries in both Germany and Japan, unearthing evidence of unethical experiments on human beings that could be viewed as war crimes. The outcomes in the two defeated nations, however, were strikingly different. In Germany, the United States, influenced by the Canadian physician John Thompson, played a key role in bringing Nazi physicians to trial and publicizing their misdeeds. In Japan, the United States played an equally key role in concealing information about the biological warfare experiments and in securing immunity from prosecution for the perpetrators. The greater force of appeals to national security and wartime exigency help to explain these different outcomes.

Battlefield euthanasia - courageous compassion or war crime?

Issues relating to voluntary euthanasia that are currently being debated by Australian society are distinctly different from those encountered by battlefield doctors. Doctors in war undertake to treat those affected by conflict; their participation in euthanasia challenges the profession's definition of "duty of care". Euthanasia must be distinguished from "triage" and medical withdrawal of care (which are decided within a medical facility where, although resources may be limited, comfort care can be provided in the face of treatment futility). Battlefield euthanasia is a decision made, often immediately after hostile action, in the face of apparently overwhelming injuries; there is often limited availability of pain relief, support systems or palliation that would be available in a civilian environment. The battlefield situation is further complicated by issues of personal danger, the immediacy of decision making and difficulties with distinguishing civilians from combatants. Regardless of the circumstances on a battlefield, doctors, whether they are civilians or members of a defence force, are subject to the laws of armed conflict, the special provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the ethical codes of the medical profession.

Phases in the postwar German reception of the "Euthanasia Program" (1939-1945) involving the killing of the mentally disabled and its exploitation by neuroscientists.

The killing of disabled patients with mental diseases during 1939-1945 is regarded as the precursor to the Holocaust. Although known at least since the Nuremberg Doctors Trial (1946-1947), the reception accorded these crimes against humanity varied (and evolved through time) depending on the parties: the old establishment, the younger generation, the different political interests, and the jurists, the theologians, the historians, the medical authorities. I attempt to distinguish five phases in the debate in light of the political background between 1945 until the present.

The United States cover-up of Japanese wartime medical atrocities: complicity committed in the national interest and two proposals for contemporary action.

To monopolize the scientific data gained by Japanese physicians and researchers from vivisections and other barbarous experiments performed on living humans in biological warfare programs such as Unit 731, immediately after the war the United States (US) government secretly granted those involved immunity from war crimes prosecution, withdrew vital information from the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, and publicly denounced otherwise irrefutable evidence from other sources such as the Russian Khabarovsk trial. Acting in "the national interest" and for the security of the US, authorities in the US tramped justice and morality, and engaged in what the English common law tradition clearly defines as "complicity after the fact." To repair this historical injustice, the US government should issue an official apology and offer appropriate compensation for having covered up Japanese medical war crimes for six decades. To help prevent similar acts of aiding principal offender(s) in the future, international declarations or codes of human rights and medical ethics should include a clause banning any kind of complicity in any unethical medicine-whether before or after the fact-by any state or group for whatever reasons.