A historical and psychological study of genocide is presented in which special emphasis is given to modern manifestations of this phenomenon. The policy of eradication of the Jews by the Hitler regime is considered as an example of genocide in the twentieth century. The psychopathology of genocide and the complex relationships among aggressors, victims and witnesses are elaborated. Inferences are drawn from past and present patterns of genocide that may provide some leads to the future. It is now possible to envisage an all-consuming genocide unless nations can learn to live together, not necessarily in unity but in diversity. (+info)
Telephone vs face-to-face interviewing in a community psychiatric survey.
(26/29)
This study compared telephone with face-to-face interviewing in a community psychiatric survey. Two groups of women were investigated, Holocaust survivors and Europe-born respondents who were in prestate Israel during World War II. Both were administered the Psychiatric Research Interview Demoralization Scale and a short item scale investigating World War II experiences. Results showed a high compliance rate to the telephone mode. The subjects' scores in the two modes were highly correlated. Telephone interviewing seems to be a reliable and efficient method in areas with a well-developed network of subscribers. (+info)
Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code.
(27/29)
The issue of ethics with respect to medical experimentation in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s was crucial at the Nuremberg trials and related trials of doctors and public health officials. Those involved in horrible crimes attempted to excuse themselves by arguing that there were no explicit rules governing medical research on human beings in Germany during the period and that research practices in Germany were not different from those in allied countries. In this context the Nuremberg code of 1947 is generally regarded as the first document to set out ethical regulations in human experimentation based on informed consent. New research, however, indicates that ethical issues of informed consent in guidelines for human experimentation were recognised as early as the nineteenth century. These guidelines shed light on the still contentious issue of when the concepts of autonomy, informed consent, and therapeutic and non-therapeutic research first emerged. This issue assumes renewed importance in the context of current attempts to assess liability and responsibility for the abuse of people in various experiments conducted since the second world war in the United States, Canada, Russia, and other nations. (+info)
Nuremberg lamentation: for the forgotten victims of medical science.
(28/29)
Fifty years after the Nuremberg medical trial there remain many unanswered questions about the role of the German medical profession during the Third Reich. Other than the question of human experimentation, important ethical challenges arising from medicine in Nazi Germany which have continuing relevance were not addressed at Nuremberg. The underlying moral question is that of the exercise of professional power and its impact on vulnerable people seeking medical care. Sensitisation to the obligations of professional power may be achieved by an annual commemoration and lament to the memory of the victims of medical abuse which would serve as a recurring reminder of the physician's vulnerability and fallibility. (+info)
Human guinea pigs and the ethics of experimentation: the BMJ's correspondent at the Nuremberg medical trial.
(29/29)
Though the Nuremberg medical trial was a United States military tribunal, British forensic pathologists supplied extensive evidence for the trial. The BMJ had a correspondent at the trial, and he endorsed a utilitarian legitimation of clinical experiments, justifying the medical research carried out under Nazism as of long term scientific benefit despite the human costs. The British supported an international medical commission to evaluate the ethics and scientific quality of German research. Medical opinions differed over whether German medical atrocities should be given publicity or treated in confidence. The BMJ's correspondent warned against medical researchers being taken over by a totalitarian state, and these arguments were used to oppose the NHS and any state control over medical research. (+info)