David Thompson wrote:kiseli -- You wrote:
any experiment on human test subjects performed illegally,without the knowledge, consent , or informed consent of the test subject is crime according to law
That's interesting, but not very helpful without reference to a particular experiment, and a specific law.
The Nuremberg Code (1947)
Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
For more information see Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Pr ... GCODE.html
Before Nuremberg code from 1947, Germany had laws about human experiments, and Nazi human experiments are crime according to these laws
"Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg code."
J. Vollmann and R. Winau
Institute of the History of Medicine, Free University of Berlin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 1-0035.pdf
"Reichsrundschreiben 1931: pre-Nuremberg German regulations concerning new therapy and human experimentation"
H M Sass
The Journal of medicine and philosophy. 06/1983; 8(2):99-111.
Early German Regulations On Medical Research In 1900
At the end of the 19th century the Prussian government on December 29, 1900, issued regulations on human experimentation [8]. The directives were published in the official publication of the Prussian Ministry of Religious, Educational and Medical Affairs, a publication similar to the Federal Register in the United States. These directives are the first modern regulations by a state authority. They are specifically and exclusively directed at medical research and point out 'that medical interventions for purposes other than diagnosis, therapy, and immunization are absolutely prohibited, even though all other legal and ethical requirements for performing such interventions are fulfilled if: (1) the person in question is a minor or is not fully competent on other grounds; (2) the person concerned has not declared unequivocally that he consents to the intervention (3) the declaration has not been made on the basis of a proper explanation of the adverse consequences that might result from the intervention' [8; 2:217]. For purposes of diagnosis, therapy and controversial immunization programs other guidelines had been issued before. Given the bureaucratic character of the Prussian state and culture, it would be unthinkable that those ministerial directives would not have been treated with the utmost respect and introduced and obeyed in the most rigid way. The rigidity of the directives is shown by the fact that research on children and noncompetent persons under no circumstances would be allowed and that bending those rules be absolutely prohibited.
While the Prussian directive covered most of the northern part of the German Reich and the majority of the German population, the Reich Health Council (Reichsgesundheitsrat), a central political body advising the Reich government and including representatives of the chambers of physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, and also Sickness Fund representatives and various representatives of central ministries issued more detailed guidelines on new therapy and an human experimentation in 1931[9]. Forms to be signed by all physicians seeking employment in open or closed health care facilities included these regulations, thus were part of the employment contract. Membership in medical professional organizations was mandatory and health care institutions and professional organization were required to implement those guidelines after they were published by the Reichsminister of the Interior. The 'Final Circular of the Reich Minister of the Interior concerning Guidelines for New Therapy and Human Experimentation', dated February 28, 1931, was binding law throughout the existence of the German Reich. For still unknown reasons, the Reich regulations were not included in the Omnibus Law (Ueberleitungsgesetz) passed by the Bundestag after 1948, which transported hundreds of laws and regulations of the Reich into the Federal Republic's legal structure.
The Nazi experiments on prisoners, children and other vulnerable populations thus violated the Reich regulations on legal grounds and on grounds of professional self-regulation. While the Reich regulations were more detailed than the Prussian instructions, they accepted experimentation with children if minimal risk could be guaranteed, not outlawing those altogether as the Prussian instructions did, but calling them impermissible 'if it endangers the child or minor in the slightest degree'.
The Reich regulations included another paragraph never repeated in subsequent regulations or, guidelines: 'Experimentation with dying persons conflicts with the principles of medical ethics and therefore is impermissible'[9:106]. To my knowledge, no other national or international legal or professional guidelines on medical research has addressed the immorality of experimenting on dying fellow humans, even though there is ample anecdotal evidence that clinical trials, experimental surgery, and even teaching and hands-on medical training do not respect the dignity of the dying. Also, the Reich Regulations expressively address the importance of research ethics to be taught in medical education, an issue not mentioned in recent guidelines or regulations on medical research [9:14].
Elsewhere I have described other groundbreaking features of the 1931 Reich Regulations [9;12]; in general, they were more strict than the Nuremberg Code of 1946, the various editions of the Helsinki-Tokyo Declaration and other regulations [13;15]. They, as the Prussian directive before, make the medical head of the institution personally and professionally unequivocally responsible for the design, implementation, and review of human experimentation [8;9], a remarkable difference to regulations in force today. The approval of a committee or other collective body was not mandated; the Prussian instruction writes: 'interventions of this nature may be performed only by the director of the institution himself or with his special authorization' [8:II.1].
from:
"Ambiguities In Judging Cruel Human Experimentation: Arbitrary American Responses to German and Japanese Experiments "
- - Hans-Martin Sass, M.D.
Zentrum Medizinische Ethik, Ruhr Universitaet
Postfach 102148, D-44780, Bochum, , GERMANY