Talk:Nuremberg Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Untitled[edit]

An update is mandatory since the code has been revised several times..and, IMHO, is loosing ground (regarding mentally disabled e.g.)

The Nuremberg code is not the only set of guidelines for human treatment. There are a host of other such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, various Geneva conventions, local and national laws, Hippocratic Oath (or modern equivalents), etc. etc. etc. -- FirstPrinciples 21:19, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pediatric experimentation?[edit]

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent"

So in the case of experimentation upon children, such as in pediatric clinical trials of a new drug, does a typical protocol designate the parent or guardian as "the person involved"? --Damian Yerrick () 23:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to the above - The Nuremburg Code was not an acceptable framework for the inclusion of children in medical research - see Ramsey vs McCormack throughout the seventies - the inclusion of children in research under very strict regulation was established when the code was incorporated into the Helsinki declaration of 1964. In that year the MRC also published its guidelines relating to paediatric experimentation and noted that they should be subject to no greater than the minimum potential harm, though this has later been extended by both the RCPCH in the UK and National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in the US, to include research that involve more minimum risk under very specific provisions.

Add to this the fact that children between the ages of 16 and 18 and those deemed Gillick competent in the UK can probably consent to research without the need for proxy parental or guardian consent, just as is possible for consenting to medical treatment.

What I would like is a reference to the text supplied quoting the Code?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.68 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Worldview tag[edit]

What is it about this that is not representative of a worldwide view. Keep in mind this page is just about the code, not about what alternatives exist. The page can be quite reputable without noting every alternative that exists, however, if you can think of other put them in See also section. I am removing the tag because it was not discussed. Ansell Review my progress! 00:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

the citation needed is probably the following book available german language Mitscherlich, A. und Mielke, F. (Hrsg.): Medizin ohne Menschlichkeit. Dokumente des Nürnberger Ärzteprozesses. Frankfurt a.M. 1960, S. 272f. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.33.233.254 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nuremberg Code-A critique.[edit]

Should we discuss this?


Abstract The Nuremberg Code drafted at the end of the Doctor's trial in Nuremberg 1947 has been hailed as a landmark document in medical and research ethics. Close examination of this code reveals that it was based on the Guidelines for Human Experimentation of 1931. The resemblance between these documents is uncanny. It is unfortunate that the authors of the Nuremberg Code passed it off as their original work. There is evidence that the defendants at the trial did request that their actions be judged on the basis of the 1931 Guidelines, in force in Germany. The prosecutors, however, ignored the request and tried the defendants for crimes against humanity, and the judges included the Nuremberg Code as a part of the judgment. Six of ten principles in Nuremberg Code are derived from the 1931 Guidelines, and two of four newly inserted principles are open to misinterpretation. There is little doubt that the Code was prepared after studying the Guidelines, but no reference was made to the Guidelines, for reasons that are not known. Using the Guidelines as a base document without giving due credit is plagiarism; as per our understanding of ethics today, this would be considered unethical. The Nuremberg Code has fallen by the wayside; since unlike the Declaration of Helsinki, it is not regularly reviewed and updated. The regular updating of some ethics codes is evidence of the evolving nature of human ethics.

Ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21731859

Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Hi Dhk0308, very nice job on the article! I liked how you dove into the prewar German Medical Association and gave us the history of the that and the platforms that existed in that organization. I think you could have maybe went more into this part of the edit, "referring National Socialism as applied biology". I was a little confused if you meant that National Socialism was called applied biology. I think it would be nice if you could combine the authorship section into the background section maybe. I think that would be helpful for organization purposes. Overall I think you touched on all the important points and presented it in an digestible manner!Jshamul (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The article seems complete and well-researched, giving a good overview aligning with my own understanding. First, a few formatting comments: using "we"/personal pronouns seems inconsistent with the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, and also, there are quite a few terms you could link to other other related articles ("racial hygiene", the Nazi government, Nuremberg, to name a few in the first section). Second, the 10 points of the code should be cited, and if you're quoting directly, that should be indicated. Lastly I think the "Background" section could be divided up into multiple sections - I'd say that the politics of pre-WWII Germany count as "background" but discussion of the Nuremberg trials themselves should be in a separate section. This part on the trials could also be expanded if more details are available. Really good overall!

Henryschuh (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Really enjoyed reading your article, and especially like the "See also" section at the end which provides people links to related Wikipedia pages. An area for improvement is that some parts of the "Significance" section seem to be not as objective. For example, more examples and elaborations could be given for the "lack of clarity" and "uncompromising language" of the code to explain the point more fully, because just stating that seems rather unsubstantiated. Reading the article made me also wonder whether the code had impacts on specific scientific studies - whether it actually provided some sort of checks and balances for studies designed by specific countries, or affected (or not) the design of specific human experimentation studies after the Code was created. So if more specific examples could be given in those areas it would make the article even better. Good job overall! KaylaMa (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dhk0308, great job on editing the background and adding authorship and significance to the page. All the information is presented very clearly. One thing I would suggest is to proofread your article again and improve transitions. For example, in the first paragraph of Significance section, there are some repetitive phrases. --Gaukulius (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)