Het is nu di jul 07, 2020 4:30 pm




Forum gesloten Dit onderwerp is gesloten, je kunt geen berichten wijzigen of nieuwe antwoorden plaatsen  [ 15 berichten ] 
lugubere onderzoeken door SS artsen 
Auteur Bericht
Marcoo

Geregistreerd:
wo okt 17, 2007 9:16 am
Berichten: 178
Bericht lugubere onderzoeken door SS artsen
Ik heb op diverse sites zitten lezen over de lugubere 'onderzoeken' die de SS dokters, zoals Mengele, uitvoerden op hun slachtoffers. Nu vraag ik me af of enkele van deze 'onderzoeken' misschien toch iets nuttigs opgeleverd hebben waar we nu nog iets aan hebben.


wo apr 16, 2008 11:48 am
Profiel
lars40/45
Bericht 
Ik heb wel eens gelezen dat de wetenschappelijke waarde van dit soort sadistische praktijken erg klein is.
Zo zijn er onderdompel beproevingen gedaan in ijskoud water met verzwakte gevangenen.
Men wilde zgn onderzoeken wat er gebeurd als een piloot uit zijn vliegtuig springt met een parachute en in het ijskoude water komt.

Alleen al het feit dat je een fitte geselecteerde piloot natuurlijk niet kunt vergelijken met een gevangene uit een concentratiekamp toont het dubieuze karakter van deze testen aan.

Verder zijn er tyfus onderzoeken gedaan op weerloze gevangenen om een vaccin te ontwikkelen om soldaten van de Wehrmacht mee te kunnen behandelen.

Bijzonder schokkend is verder dat de resultaten later op een artsencongres in Duitsland werden besproken, en dat niet 1 van de aanwezige Herr Doktors aanleiding zag om de onderzoeken te bekritiseren.

Het gezag van de witte jas is later in Amerika nog eens bij een onderzoek tegen het licht gehouden bij een expiriment met medische studenten.
Dat blijkt dat bijna iedereen klakkeloos de instructies opvolgt van gezaghebbende personen zonder dit aan morele thema's te toetsen.
Het boek dat daar over is geschreven : Zijn wij allen NAZI's ?


wo apr 16, 2008 12:53 pm
Marcoo

Geregistreerd:
wo okt 17, 2007 9:16 am
Berichten: 178
Bericht 
Lars, dank voor je reactie.

Deze testen hebben inderdaad totaal niets met wetenschap te maken. Het is puur sadisme.

Maar wie weet is er 'per ongeluk' wel iets (een vaccin of behandeling) tegen bepaalde ziektes o.i.d. ontdekt waar we nu nog baat bij hebben of iets waar de echte wetenschap na de oorlog enigsinds op voort heeft kunnen borduren.

Ik kan me iets herinneren over een vorm van bestraling dat kankercellen tegengaat, maar of dit echt waar is.... :?:

_________________
"In war, you win or lose, live or die - and the difference is an eyelash."
- General Douglas MacArthur


wo apr 16, 2008 1:10 pm
Profiel
Avatar gebruiker
John S.

Geregistreerd:
ma dec 20, 2004 11:46 pm
Berichten: 4885
Woonplaats: Landgraaf
Bericht 
Marcoo:

Citaat:
Deze testen hebben inderdaad totaal niets met wetenschap te maken. Het is puur sadisme.


Het spijt me mannen, maar jullie hebben ongelijk en zijn zelfs ietwat kort door de bocht. Er is na de oorlog veel onderzoek geweest naar de aard en de resultaten van deze onderzoeken en experimenten. En natuurlijk was er hier en daar sprake van misselijk makend sadisme. Inderdaad is het schandalig en crimineel geweest om verzwakte gevangen tegen hun wil als proefkonijn te gebruiken. Er zijn dan ook veel te weinig van deze 'medische misdadigers' veroordeeld na de oorlog.

Toch hebben de geallieerden daar dankbaar gebruik van genaakt na de oorlog. Er zijn weldegelijk belangrijke medische onderzoekssresultaten geboekt die in de decennia erna van grote waarde bleken.

Ik adviseer jullie dan ook om, wanneer julle meer info over deze materie willen, op zoek te gaan naar wat meer 'leesvoer'. Ik kan het boek 'Hitler or Hippocrates, Medical experiments and euthanasia in the Third Reich', van Paul Hoedeman van harte aanbevelen. Moet ook nog ergens in het Nederlands te krijgen zijn.

_________________
Voorheen bekend als: Jumpmaster

There was no glory in the victory of war, only honor to those who fought bravely,
and memories of those who sufferd and died in battle. D.R. Burgett


wo apr 16, 2008 4:06 pm
Profiel ICQ
Hoofdredactie
Avatar gebruiker
Kevin

Geregistreerd:
za maart 27, 2004 7:12 pm
Berichten: 10145
Bericht 
John S. schreef:
Toch hebben de geallieerden daar dankbaar gebruik van genaakt na de oorlog. Er zijn weldegelijk belangrijke medische onderzoekssresultaten geboekt die in de decennia erna van grote waarde bleken.

Kun je daarvan misschien concrete voorbeelden noemen John? Niet omdat ik je niet geloof, integendeel, ik kan me best voorstellen dat bepaalde resultaten inderdaad gebruikt zijn voor de naoorlogse wetenschap. Ik kan dat echter niet onderbouwen met voorbeelden. Volgens mij rust er - volkomen logisch en ook terecht - een taboe op dit onderwerp.

Overigens is het wel belangrijk om onderscheid te maken in de verschillende soorten experimenten. Mengele's experimenten met tweelingen waren bijvoorbeeld wel sadistisch en pervers en hadden niks met wetenschap van doen.

_________________
Hoofdredacteur Artikelen TracesOfWar.com
STIWOT (Stichting Informatie Wereldoorlog Twee)

Schrijver van:
* Oorlogszone Zoo
* De boodschapper uit de hel
* Een rechter in Auschwitz
* Het masker van de massamoordenaar
* Kerstmis onder vuur


wo apr 16, 2008 5:13 pm
Profiel WWW
Avatar gebruiker
John S.

Geregistreerd:
ma dec 20, 2004 11:46 pm
Berichten: 4885
Woonplaats: Landgraaf
Bericht 
Inderdaad kevin. Daarom schreef ik ook:

Citaat:
En natuurlijk was er hier en daar sprake van misselijk makend sadisme.



Vergeet ook niet dat het gros van de veroordeelden absoluut geen wroeging had, maar bleven volhouden slechts waardevol wetenschappelijk onderzoek te hebben gedaan..


Dr. E.A. Cohen (gevangene doktor te Auschwitz) en historicus dr. Hoedeman stellen bijvoorbeeld het volgende over het 'dankbare' gedrag van geallieerden na de oorlog:

'Language lapses into stunned silence faced with the atrocities perpetraded in the concentration camps by Nazi-doctors in the name of scientific research. Equally culpable however was the cynical complicity dispayed by Allied bureaucrats who sought the service of these criminals immediately after the war. Incriminating dossiers of potentially usefull scientist were conveniently mislaid by the Americans'

Later meer.......

_________________
Voorheen bekend als: Jumpmaster

There was no glory in the victory of war, only honor to those who fought bravely,
and memories of those who sufferd and died in battle. D.R. Burgett


wo apr 16, 2008 6:29 pm
Profiel ICQ
Avatar gebruiker
John S.

Geregistreerd:
ma dec 20, 2004 11:46 pm
Berichten: 4885
Woonplaats: Landgraaf
Bericht 
Een verdere bron voor meer informatie over oa. de misdaden van artsen in Auschwitz is het boek 'De ogen van het monster' van Maxime Steinberg. In de bijlage is het complete dagboek van Johann Paul Kremer (SS-arts-officier) te lezen.
Steinberg analyseert het dagboek van Kremer en haalt appropos ook even de wind uit de zeilen van een aantal revisionisten.

_________________
Voorheen bekend als: Jumpmaster

There was no glory in the victory of war, only honor to those who fought bravely,
and memories of those who sufferd and died in battle. D.R. Burgett


wo apr 16, 2008 6:35 pm
Profiel ICQ
Avatar gebruiker
John S.

Geregistreerd:
ma dec 20, 2004 11:46 pm
Berichten: 4885
Woonplaats: Landgraaf
Bericht 
Nog een boek die een indringende kijk in de 'keuken' geeft is:
'Arts achter prikkeldraad' van Dr. Albert Haas.
Alle hierboven vermelde boeken zijn in mijn bezit.

_________________
Voorheen bekend als: Jumpmaster

There was no glory in the victory of war, only honor to those who fought bravely,
and memories of those who sufferd and died in battle. D.R. Burgett


wo apr 16, 2008 6:38 pm
Profiel ICQ
lars40/45
Bericht 
John, bedankt voor je waardevolle inbreng.

Het is goed dat deze zaak op een genuanceerde manier wat verder kan worden uitgediept, ik heb in het verleden al eens vaker nagedacht over deze materie.
Ik had het toen bij gebrek aan bronnen weer gelaten voor wat het was.

Het is nu geen doodlopend straatje meer.
Mocht de indruk zijn kort door de bocht te zijn gegaan, dan is het door een gebrek
aan goede bronnen, die nu gelukkig beschikbaar zijn gekomen.


do apr 17, 2008 9:37 am
Hoofdredactie
Avatar gebruiker
Kevin

Geregistreerd:
za maart 27, 2004 7:12 pm
Berichten: 10145
Bericht 
Maar concrete voorbeelden van nazi-experimenten op mensen die van nut zijn geweest voor de naoorlogse wetenschap zijn nog niet genoemd. Wat onderzocht werd en hoe vreselijk de experimenten waren, is in veel bronnen terug te vinden, maar deze vraag heb ik persoonlijk nooit echt goed beantwoord gezien.

Een voorbeeld. Ik heb een paar jaar geleden een profielwerkstuk van twee leerlingen toegestuurd gekregen over dit onderwerp. Zij hadden deze vraag voorgelegd aan twee artsen. De ene was er volledig van overtuigd dat deze experimenten nuttige resultaten hadden voortgebracht, terwijl de ander juist het tegendeel beweerde.

Op internet word ik ook niet wijzer. Er is wel een heleboel informatie te vinden over de vraag of het ethisch verantwoord en/of nuttig is om nazi-experimenten voor de wetenschap te gebruiken, maar nergens zie ik echt duidelijke voorbeelden van gegevens die daadwerkelijk al met succes gebruikt zijn. Er is bijvoorbeeld het één en ander te lezen over de onderzoeken die de nazi's deden naar het verband tussen roken en longkanker. Het schijnt dat zij dit verband als eerste ontdekten, maar toch is het een Brit die bekend staat als de ontdekker daarvan. Dat deed hij in de jaren '50.

We weten dat de Amerikanen na de oorlog dankbaar gebruik maakten van de kennis en ervaring van mensen als Wernher von Braun, maar zelfs een oorlogsmisdadiger als Klaus Barbie kon men gebruiken. Of hetzelfde geldt voor nazi-artsen is mij niet duidelijk. Als bepaalde resultaten gebruikt zijn, is het ook maar de vraag of daar openheid over is.

_________________
Hoofdredacteur Artikelen TracesOfWar.com
STIWOT (Stichting Informatie Wereldoorlog Twee)

Schrijver van:
* Oorlogszone Zoo
* De boodschapper uit de hel
* Een rechter in Auschwitz
* Het masker van de massamoordenaar
* Kerstmis onder vuur


do apr 17, 2008 11:24 am
Profiel WWW
Avatar gebruiker
John S.

Geregistreerd:
ma dec 20, 2004 11:46 pm
Berichten: 4885
Woonplaats: Landgraaf
Bericht 
Meer info:

PROPOSED USE OF NAZI SCIENTIFIC DATA

a. POZOS' CHILLING DILEMMA

Doctor Robert Pozos is the Director of the Hypothermia Laboratory at the University of Minnesota of Medicine at Duluth. His research is devoted to methods of rewarming frozen victims of cold. Much of what he and other hypothermia specialists know about rescuing frozen victims is the result of trial and error performed in hospital emergency rooms. Pozos believes that many of the existing rewarming techniques that have been used thus far lack a certain amount of critical scientific thinking.

Pozos points out that the major rewarming controversy has been between the use of passive external rewarming (which uses the patient's own body heat) and active external rewarming (which means the direct application of exogenous heat directly to the surface of the body). Hospitals have thus far microwaved frozen people, used warm blankets, induced warm fluids into body cavities (through the pertinium, rectum or urinary bladder), performed coronary bypass surgery, immersed the frozen bodies into hot bath tubs, and used body-to-body rewarming techniques.11 Some victims were saved, some were lost. This might be due to the lack of legitimate information on the effects of cold on humans, since the existing data is limited to the effects of cold on animals. Animals and humans differ widely in their physiological response to cold. Accordingly, hypothermia research is uniquely dependent on human test subjects. Although Pozos has experimented on many volunteers at his hypothermia lab, he refused to allow the subject's temperature to drop more than 36 degrees. Pozos had to speculate what the effects would be on a human being at lower temperatures. The only ones that put humans through extensive hypothermia research (at lower temperatures) were the Nazis at Dachau.

The Nazis immersed their subjects into vats of ice water at sub-zero temperatures, or left them out to freeze in the winter cold. As the prisoners excreted mucus, fainted and slipped into unconsciousness, the Nazis meticulously recorded the changes in their body temperature, heart rate, muscle response, and urine.12

The Nazis attempted rewarming the frozen victims. Doctor Rascher did, in fact, discover an innovative "Rapid Active Rewarming" technique in resuscitating the frozen victims. This technique completely contradicted the popularly accepted method of slow passive rewarming. Rascher found his active rewarming in hot liquids to be the most efficient means of revival.13

The Nazi data on hypothermia experiments would apparently fill the gap in Pozos' research. Perhaps it contained the information necessary to rewarm effectively frozen victims whose body temperatures were below 36 degrees. Pozos obtained the long suppressed Alexander Report on the hypothermia experiments at Dachau. He planned to analyze for publication the Alexander Report, along with his evaluation, to show the possible applications of the Nazi experiments to modern hypothermia research. Of the Dachau data, Pozos said, "It could advance my work in that it takes human subjects farther than we're willing."14

Pozos' plan to republish the Nazi data in the New England Journal of Medicine was flatly vetoed by the Journal's editor, Doctor Arnold Relman.15 Relman's refusal to publish Nazi data along with Pozos' comments was understandable given the source of the Nazi data and the way it was obtained.

b. HAYWARD'S EQUALLY CHILLING DILEMMA

Doctor John Hayward is a Biology Professor at the Victoria University in Vancouver, Canada. Much of his hypothermia research involves the testing of cold water survival suits that are worn while on fishing boats in Canada's frigid ocean waters. Hayward used Rascher's recorded cooling curve of the human body to infer how long the suits would protect people at near fatal temperatures. This information can be used by search-and-rescue teams to determine the likelihood that a capsized boater is still alive.

According to Kristine Moe's survey in the Hasting Center Report, Hayward justified using the Nazi hypothermia data in the following way:

"I don't want to have to use the Nazi data, but there is no other and will be no other in an ethical world. I've rationalized it a bit. But not to use it would be equally bad. I'm trying to make something constructive out of it. I use it with my guard up, but it's useful." [Emphasis Added]

Hayward continued to rely on the data even though the subjects were lean, malnourished, and emaciated prisoners, with little or close to no insulating body fat (and therefore unrepresentative of the general populace to be benefitted from the study). Hayward still trusted the data because the general linear shape of Doctor Rascher's cooling curve (as the prisoners neared death) appeared to be consistent with the cooling curve at warm temperatures.

Since a better knowledge of survival in cold water has direct and immediate practical benefits for education in cold water safety, and in the planning of naval rescue missions at sea, Pozos and Hayward see it criminal not to use the available data, no matter how tainted it may be.

c. EPA BARRED THE USE OF NAZI DATA ON THE STUDY OF PHOSGENE

In 1989, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") considered air pollution regulations on "phosgene," a toxic gas used in the manufacture of pesticides and plastic. Approximately one billion pounds of phosgene is produced annually in the United States.16 Tragically, phosgene was used in chemical warfare in the Iran-Iraq War, and was anticipated to be used in Project Desert Storm.

As part of their research, the EPA scientists analyzed how different doses of phosgene affected the lungs, particularly of the people living around the manufacturing plants that process the gas. They found that except for local irritation to the skin, eyes and upper respiratory tract, the lungs could be considered the target organ of phosgene gas. Even at intermediate and low concentrations, phosgene destroys enzymes in the lungs. This causes fluid build up, and can lead to death by "drowning."17

Until then, the EPA scientists depended solely on animal experiments to predict the effect of the gas on humans. Human data would naturally be the ultimate preference to work from, but it was rarely available. To date, no information about intentional exposure in occupational settings exists for the EPA to analyze.18

Because of the lack of human data connected to the gas, scientists in the EPA's Assessment Branch suggested using the Nazi data on phosgene, since the Nazi experiments provided comparatively more data on humans, rather than the existing data derived from animal research.

An experimental study on the acute toxicity of phosgene on humans was performed during World War II. Fearful of a phosgene gas attack by the Allies in Africa, Heinreich Himmler ordered Doctor Bickenbach to experiment on humans in an effort to develop a means of protecting the Germans against phosgene poisoning. Fifty-two French prisoners were exposed to the toxic gas. Four of the prisoners died in the experiments conducted at Fort Ney, near Strassburg, France. The remaining weak and emaciated prisoners developed pulmonary edema from the exposure to the gas. Rumor had it, that Bickenbach herded the prisoners into an air tight testing chamber, broke open a vial of phosgene gas, and counted how long it took for the prisoners to die. This sordid report of the experiment was revealed during the War Crimes trial in France.

Serious concerns were raised by EPA scientists that the recorded data was flawed. They based their skepticism on the fact that Bickenbach's report failed to note how the pulmonary edema was measured, nor what the victim's sex or weight was.

But Todd Thorslund, a Vice President of ICF-Clement, an environmental consulting firm that used the Nazi data in preparing the draft study under contract with the EPA, staunchly defended the accuracy of the Nazi data. He observed that the poor health of the prisoners was not an important factor for consideration because the EPA was concerned about the health of sensitive populations, and that using the Nazi data would provide a conservative model. Also, the lack of information about the prisoner's sex and weight was similarly irrelevant because phosgene is so toxic that it is the dose in the air that make the difference.19

The Nazi phosgene data could have saved the lives of the residents who live near the manufacturing plant. It had the potential to save the lives of our American Troops stationed in the Persian Gulf, in the event of a chemical attack by Sadam Hussein. People's lives were severely threatened. Should the EPA have used the Nazi data or ignore it?

This issue touched off a fierce debate among agency scientists concerning the propriety of using data originally acquired by the Nazis. Upon learning of the draft study's references to the Nazi data, former EPA Chief Administrator Lee Thomas decided that the agency should not use the data. Thomas' decision came after he received a letter signed by twenty-two EPA scientists protesting the use of the Nazi data.20

Thomas considered the use of the Nazi data to be at the very least "stupid" because it would open the EPA to criticism. Similar information could have been taken from other sources, like animal experiments and medical records of workers accidentally exposed to the gas.

To date, it is unclear whether the Nazi human data would have predicted a different dose-response effect compared to the animal research. Furthermore, it is equally unclear how EPA Chief Thomas could continue to allow the manufacture of the gas, thereby putting the residents at risk, without a complete and thorough analysis on the effects of the gas on humans. Thomas' decision seemed unfair to those who are currently being exposed to the gas. They would not appreciate the fact that the applicable data existed, but was not consulted.

Thomas' knee-jerk reaction to the prospects of the Nazi data's use is typical, but unprofessional, especially when human lives are at stake. The Nazi data could be critical to saving known victim's lives. If anything, Thomas' decision to reject using the Nazi data when human lives are in serious jeopardy was at the very least "stupid."

d. THE TWO BRAINS OF THE VOGT COLLECTION

The past three case examples demonstrate scenarios where Nazi data could be critical to saving victims' lives today. The brains of the Vogt Collection offer no immediate benefit to any ailing victims. The brains were not collected for transplant purposes, but for research and study. The potential to save lives from use of the study of the brains seems as tenuous as the Nazi data.

At the 1986 meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Doctor Berhard Bogerts presented his findings on schizophrenic brains based on the experiments of the Brain Collection at the Vogt Institute of the Brain Research in Dusseldorf, West Germany. Normal and schizophrenic brains were collected by the Vogts between the years 1928 and 1953.21

Bogerts indicated the year of each subject's death, and noted that two of the patients died during the dark Nazi era. It turned out that these two patients, Ernst and Klaus, were twin brothers who died after their transfer to the Wittenau Medical facility. Bogerts discovered that Ernst and Klaus may very well have been murdered through malnutrition and neglect by the Nazi doctors at Wittenau. Indeed, the use of twins in experiments and the mass murders of psychiatric patients during the Nazi regime were common. Bogerts raised obvious suspicions as to the brains' origins.

Two doctors from the Clinical Neurogenetics Department of the National Institute of Mental Health responded to the Vogt Brain controversy by warning Bogerts that moral and ethical shadows would be cast on the entire medical profession should the brains be accepted without a thorough inquiry and investigation into their origins. Until such investigation, the doctors suggested that Bogerts exclude the two specimens from his research.22

They further recommended that medical curators, generally, investigate every specimen obtained during the Nazi years, and that any specimen that may have resulted from Nazi murder or torture be removed from the collection. Such a review would support the integrity of the collection. In the absence of such a review, the presence of the suspicious brains would render the entire collection questionable. This would invariably detract from the credibility of the medical profession.

The doctors' response was reassuring for many reasons. First and foremost, it showed that there are still members of the medical profession who place professional integrity above their personal ambitions. Second, their response echoed the basic premise of our analysis, that when the medical crisis is real and the benefit to society is great, the data should be used. When the medical problem is not pressing (schizophrenic brain research) and the benefit to society is relatively marginal, the need to preserve the integrity of the medical profession and the victims' memory outweighs the potential benefit to society.

Scientific Validity

Nazi Concentration Camp science is often branded as bad science. First, it is doubtful that physiological responses of the tortured and maimed victims represented the responses of the people for whom the experiments were meant to benefit. Second, additional doubts about the scientific integrity of the experiments surface when we consider the Nazi doctors' political aspirations and their enthusiasm for medical conclusions that proved Nazi racial theory. Finally, the fact that the Nazi experiments were not officially published nor replicated raises doubts about the data's scientific accuracy.

Doctor Jay Katz of the Yale University School of Law, who emphatically opposed the re-use of the Nazi data, suggests nonetheless that the experiments be republished in full detail so that no one may deny that they occurred. He would then condemn the data to oblivion. Dr. Katz dismissed the Nazi experiments with one phrase: "They're of no scientific value."23

Katz's opinion brings to mind the words of Brigadier General Telford Taylor, Chief Counsel for the prosecution at Nuremberg, when he argued that the Nazi experiments were insufficient and unscientific, "a ghostly failure as well as a hideous crime . . . Those experiments revealed nothing which civilized medicine can use."24 Arnold Relman, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, similarly stated that the Nazi experiments were such a "gross violation of human standards that they are not to be trusted at all."

Doctor Leonard Hoenig, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, categorized the Nazi experiments as "pseudo-science," since the Nazis blurred the distinction between science and sadism. The data was not recorded from scientific hypothesis and research, but rather, it was inspired and administered through racial ideologies of genocide. Doctor Hoenig maintained that nothing scientific could have resulted from sadism.

Allen Buchanan, Philosophy Professor at the University of Arizona, is also a member of the Human Subjects Review Committee at the University of Minnesota. He believes that bad ethics and bad science are inextricably linked together. He found that the human experiments that were ethically sound were also scientifically sound. Therefore, he concluded that since the Nazi experiments were unethical, they were, by equation, scientifically invalid.

Doctor Leo Alexander, a Major in the United States Army Medical Corps, and the psychiatric consultant to the Secretary of War and to the Chief Counsel for War Crimes at the Nuremberg Doctors' Trial, wrote a report evaluating the Nazi hypothermia experiments at Dachau. Reading his synopsis was as chilling as the subject at hand. Doctor Alexander was somewhat ambiguous as to the Nazi data's validity. On one hand, he stated that Doctor Rascher's hypothermia experiments "satisfied all of the criteria of accurate and objective observation and interpretation." He later concluded that parts of the Nazi data on hypothermia were not dependable because of inconsistencies found in Rascher's lab notes. According to Rascher's official report to Himmler, it took from 53 to 100 minutes to kill the frozen prisoners. Alexander's inspection of Rascher's personal lab record revealed that it actually took from 80 minutes to five or six hours to kill the subjects.

Historians have suggested several reasons for Rascher's inconsistent hypothermia data. The most revealing theory was that Rascher was under strict orders, by Himmler himself, to produce hypothermia results, or else. Apparently, Rascher dressed up his findings to forestall confrontations with Himmler. Shortly before the German surrender, Himmler discovered Rascher's lies, and had Rascher and his wife (Himmler's mistress) murdered because of Rascher's deceptions.25

The experts agree that the Nazi experiments lacked scientific integrity. The Nazis even perverted scientific terminology. Their experimental "control subjects" suffered the most and died. "Sample size" meant truck loads of Jews. "Significance" was an indication of misery, and "response rate" was a measure of torment. Behind the niceties of their learned discourse were the horrors of Nazi torture. Some have suggested against terming them "experiments," since they were really brutal beatings and mugging.

ii. Scientific Competence of the Nazi Doctors

The debate over the scientific validity of the Nazi experiments must include the scientific and medical competence of the Nazi doctors. Our general impression of a Nazi doctor conjures up an image of a deranged madman working in an isolated dungeon. In certain instances, the Dr. Frankenstein stereotype is an accurate one.

For example, consider Dr. Otto Prokop's critique of Doctor Heissmeyer and of his tuberculosis experiments. Dr. Prokop was Germany's Forensic authority, and his criticism illustrated Heissmeyer's limited medical competence:

"One characteristic feature of Heissmeyer's experiment is his extraordinary lack of concern, add this to his gross and total ignorance in the field of immunology, in particular bacteriology. He did not then, nor does he now, possess the necessary expertise demanded in a specialist TB diseases . . . He does not own any modern bacteriology textbook. He is also not familiar with the various work methods of bacteriology . . . According to his own admission, Heissmeyer was not concerned about curing the prisoners who were put at his disposal. Nor did he believe that his experiments would produce therapeutic results, and he actually counted on there being detrimental, indeed fatal, outcomes to the prisoners."26

Author William Shirer reported that Nazi medical incompetence was not limited to a few isolated instances. Shirer felt that the Nazi Doctors were generally murderous "quacks," and were people of the "lowest medical standard."27

Shirer's image of the Nazi Doctors as irrational psychopathic butchers, on the fringes of professional medicine, failed to appreciate that these doctors were actually among the top professionals in their fields. Their experimental results were presented in scientific journals and in prestigious conferences and academies. The following examples will serve to demonstrate the Nazi doctors' scientific and medical competence.

(1) At three conferences in the Fall of 1942, results of Rascher's hypothermia experiments, titled "The Medical Questions in Marine & Winter Emergencies," were presented to several hundred doctors including leading authorities and hospital directors.28

(2) In May, 1943, the Military Medical Academy in Berlin was "honored" by sponsoring Nazi Doctors Karl Gebhart and Fritz Fischer on the effectiveness of the new drugs produced by the Bayer Pharmaceutical Group of the IG Farben Industry.29 The two doctors reported the findings of SS Captain Doctor Helmuth Vetter's research conducted on 200 female prisoners of Auschwitz. The Doctors boasted as to how Vetter injected the women's lungs with gas/bacilli and streptococcus, and cause them to die from pulmonary edema. Their presentation was hosted at the Ravensbrueck Concentration Camp, which published and distributed their findings to the German Health Care Profession.

(3) Even Mengele (known as the Angel of Death) once boasted a respectable professional career. An article pertaining to Doctor Joseph Mengele's work at the Institute of Heredity & Racial Hygiene of the University of Frankfurt was listed in the 1938 edition of the prestigious Index Medicus.30 Mengele's earlier work in oral embryology and in the developmental anomalies of cleft palate and harelip have been cited in several texts and articles on the subject. Additionally, in recognition of Mengele's work with his mentor Von Verschuer, the German Research Society provided a generous financial grant to Mengele, enabling him to continue his work on the study of inmates with eyes of different colors.

iii. The Irrelevance of the Argument

Ultimately, the arguments as to whether the experiments were scientific or not, or whether the doctors were medically competent or not, leaves one with the impression that had such experiments been "good" science and the doctors medical professionals, these facts would somehow change our impression of the doctors and their experiments. This is not true. The sadistic evil of the Nazi butchery is in no way lessened by its scientific value. Conferring medical or scientific validity on the Nazi murderers is not an option for consideration.

b. BENEFITS TO SOCIETY

Despite the arguments that the Nazi experiments were unscientific, the data does exist. Although the data is morally tainted and soaked with the blood of its victims, one cannot escape confronting the dreaded possibility that perhaps the doctors at Dachau actually learned something that today could help save lives or "benefit" society.

Author Kristine Moe suggested that by using the hypothermia experimental data, "good" would be derived from the evil:

"Nor, however, should we let the inhumanity of such experiments blind us to the possibility that some "good" may be salvaged from the ashes."31

What kind of "good" could be salvaged from the victims' ashes? What societal benefit, if any, could be so compelling to justify using the Nazi data? Arguably, when the wickedness of the experiment has been very great, then only a colossally important objective can justify its use. Those that wish to use the data have to satisfy the burden of proof, which becomes greater in proportion to the wickedness of the experiment.

It is easy to see the futility of advocating the data's use when the intended benefit to society is trivial and moderate. Conversely, if the intended benefit is to save lives, most would agree that the data should be used.

i. Using the Data to Save Lives - Transplanting a Murdered Heart

Consider the following hypothetical: suppose that a recipient and likely donor have been selected for a heart transplant operation. Usually, a donor is chosen among accident victims, close to death. Immediately after death, a donor's heart must be quickly removed because his heart must still be alive or at least capable of living again to save the recipient's life. Prior to death, a donor is in the halachic category of a terminally ill patient, and one must be very careful not to do anything that might hasten his death.

Given, then, that A is the donor, and that B is the worthy recipient, it would certainly be unethical to remove A's heart while he is still alive (thereby killing him) with the intent to transplant it into B's body. B's blood is not redder than A's, and both A and B deserve an equal chance to live. But what if a doctor disobeyed our warning, and removed A's heart anyway? Can he transplant A's murdered heart to save B's life? B still needs a new heart or he will die. The moral problem is: what do we do with A's murdered heart? Do we throw it away because it was immorally obtained? If so, must the needy recipient (B) suffer and die because of A's unfortunate death? If so, is it ethical to have B's death on our conscience? And what of the doctor? Suppose he transplanted A's murdered heart into B. Would the doctor be considered A's murderer or B's hero? Could he be both? Would B's renewed life suffer because of A's death?

This hypothetical provides us with the perfect scenario in which life can actually emerge from death, and good can emerge from evil. Medical statistics predict that a transplanted heart could increase the recipient's chances of living by up to 80%. The potential to save the recipient's life is almost guaranteed. The murdered heart (although tainted) must be transplanted to save the recipient's life. Withholding the murdered heart from the worthy recipient would be tantamount to murder. Our underlying rationale in using the heart is to focus prospectively on the present medical crisis. The recipient desperately needs a transplanted heart, or else he dies. This murdered heart will save his life.

Does the Nazi data share that same definite guarantee for saving human lives as does an available organ to a needy recipient? If it does, then one could theoretically agree that it should most definitely be used. Perhaps justice would ultimately be served if we were to allow life to emerge from the Nazi murders. Although the data's untested potential to save lives seems to be a bit more tenuous than that of the healthy heart, the potential to save a life might still be present. Therefore, the data should be used when lives are at stake.


If the Nazi data could be used to benefit society it remains questionable whether it can be derived by analogy from the Talmudic account of these three experiments.


Therefore, there is a potential halachic basis to permit the use of: the German Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen automobiles, the "Dachau" rewarming techniques, the "Clauberg" fertility treatment, the "Heissmeyer" tuberculosis treatment, and even the "Mengele" data on genetics. Halachically, the data could be used in lieu of its abominable origins.

Absolute censorship of the Nazi data does not seem proper, especially when the secrets of saving lives may lie solely in its contents. Society must decide on its use by correctly understanding the exact benefits to be gained. When the value of the Nazi data is of great value to humanity, then the morally appropriate policy would be to utilize the data, while explicitly condemning the atrocities. But the data should not be used just with a single disclaimer. To further justify its use, the scientific validity of the experiment must be clear; there must be no other alternative source from which to gain that information, and the capacity to save lives must be evident.

Once a decision to use the data has been made, experts suggest that it must not be included as ordinary scientific research, just to be cited and placed in a medical journal. I agree with author Robert J. Lifton who suggested that citation of the data must contain a thorough expose' of exactly what tortures and atrocities were committed for that experiment. Citations of the Nazi data must be accompanied with the author's condemnation of the data as a lesson in horror and as a moral aberration in medical science. The author who chooses to use the Nazi data must be prepared to expose the Nazi doctors' immoral experiments as medical evil, never to be repeated.

Bron: Ira Kasdan

_________________
Voorheen bekend als: Jumpmaster

There was no glory in the victory of war, only honor to those who fought bravely,
and memories of those who sufferd and died in battle. D.R. Burgett


do apr 17, 2008 12:57 pm
Profiel ICQ
lars40/45
Bericht 
Zo, dat was even doorbijten om daar de essentie van te doorgronden.
Mijn Engels is niet bepaald slecht maar met dit artikel met al zijn medische
terminologie had ik af en toe wel even moeite.

De rode draad is mij wel duidelijk geworden en iedereen kan nu zijn eigen mening vormen aan de hand van goede bronnen en hun meningen.

Mijn mening in deze nog altijd controversiele zaak is :

Op het morele en etische vlak zijn de expirimenten volstrekt te verwerpen.
Echter als het wetenschappenlijk is aangetoond dat sommige resultaten toch nog van nut kunnen zijn voor hedendaags medisch onderzoek dan heb ik daar onder voorwaarden geen bezwaar tegen.
In mijn achterhoofd speelt dan vooral het feit dat de zinloze dood van de slachtoffers van de nazi beulen toch nog iets in zich heeft waar we vandaag nog iets aan hebben.
Bovendien is elke aandacht voor deze zwarte periode uit onze geschiedenis weer een stapje verder van de afgrond van het vergeten.


vr apr 18, 2008 10:40 am
Avatar gebruiker
John S.

Geregistreerd:
ma dec 20, 2004 11:46 pm
Berichten: 4885
Woonplaats: Landgraaf
Bericht 
Tja, het is een flinke lap text, maar ik hoop dat je er wat aan hebt :wink:

_________________
Voorheen bekend als: Jumpmaster

There was no glory in the victory of war, only honor to those who fought bravely,
and memories of those who sufferd and died in battle. D.R. Burgett


vr apr 18, 2008 7:35 pm
Profiel ICQ
lars40/45
Bericht 
Zeker weten, ik denk dat er geen forum bestaat waarbij een enkele vraag op zoveel betrokkenheid van de andere forumleden kan rekenen. :D
Om over de hoge mate van deskundigheid nog maar te zwijgen . Petje af.


vr apr 18, 2008 10:04 pm
Technische Dienst
Avatar gebruiker
Egbert

Geregistreerd:
za aug 13, 2005 6:35 pm
Berichten: 6607
Bericht 
Even een opmerking verwijderd. Wie of wat het ook is, we gaan niet persoonlijk worden.

_________________
Nothing is stronger than the heart of a volunteer.


vr apr 18, 2008 11:13 pm
Profiel
Geef de vorige berichten weer:  Sorteer op  
Forum gesloten Dit onderwerp is gesloten, je kunt geen berichten wijzigen of nieuwe antwoorden plaatsen  [ 15 berichten ] 


Wie is er online

Gebruikers op dit forum: Geen geregistreerde gebruikers. en 2 gasten


Je mag geen nieuwe onderwerpen in dit forum plaatsen
Je mag niet antwoorden op een onderwerp in dit forum
Je mag je berichten in dit forum niet wijzigen
Je mag je berichten niet uit dit forum verwijderen

Zoek naar:
Ga naar:  
Alle rechten voorbehouden © STIWOT 2000-2012. Privacyverklaring, cookies en disclaimer.

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group