Law Commons^™

Physicians And Torture: Lessons From The Nazi Doctors, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

How is it possible? What are the personal, professional and political contexts that allow physicians to use their skills to torture and kill rather than heal? What are the psychological characteristics and the social, cultural and political factors that predispose physicians to participate in human rights abuses? What can be done to recognize at-risk situations and attempt to provide corrective or preventive strategies? This article examines case studies from Nazi Germany in an attempt to answer these questions. Subjects discussed include the psychology of the individual perpetrator, dehumanization, numbing, splitting, omnipotence, medicalization, group dynamics, obedience to authority, diffusion of responsibility, …

American Bioethics And Human Rights: The End Of All Our Exploring, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

In his compelling novel Blindness, José Saramago tells us about victims stricken by a contagious form of blindness who were quarantined and came to see themselves as pigs, dogs, and “lame crabs.” Of course, they were all human beings - although unable to perceive themselves, or others, as members of the human community. The disciplines of bioethics, health law, and human rights are likewise all members of the broad human rights community, although at times none of them may be able to see the homologies, even when responding to a specific health challenge.

The boundaries between bioethics, health law, and …

Protecting Soldiers From Friendly Fire: The Consent Requirement For Using Investigational Drugs And Vaccines In Combat, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

In 1990, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the Department of Defense (DOD) sought a waiver of the informed consent requirements of existing human experimentation regulations from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). With this waiver, DOD could authorize military use of investigational drugs and vaccines on soldiers involved in the Gulf War without their informed consent. The basis of the waiver request was military expediency. In DOD's words: "In all peace time applications, we believe strongly in informed consent and ethical foundations... but military combat is different." DOD's rationale was that informed consent under combat conditions was "not feasible" because …

The Changing Landscape Of Human Experimentation: Nuremberg, Helsinki, And Beyond, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

Since World War II there have been persistent efforts at both the national and international level to develop rules to protect the rights and welfare of subjects of human experimentation.' These efforts have focused primarily on codifying the rights of subjects, and protecting their welfare by prior peer review of research protocols. In recent years research regulations have been under attack by politicians, drug companies, researchers, and advocacy groups. In less than half a century, human experimentation has been transformed from a suspect activity into a presumptively beneficial activity. With this transformation, traditional distinctions between experimentation and therapy, subject and …

Changing The Consent Rules For Desert Storm, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

Shortly before the beginning of Operation Desert Storm, during Desert Shield, the U.S. military sought a waiver of requirements for informed consent for the use of investigational drugs and vaccines on our troops in the Persian Gulf. The danger of chemical and biologic warfare was seen as demanding this waiver, although the Nuremberg Code, other codes of medical ethics, and respect for the human rights of American soldiers seemed to caution against it. One year later it seems reasonable to review this decision. The legal maneuvering to revise consent regulations for wartime conditions provides a case study that highlights three …

Mengele's Birthmark: The Nuremberg Code In United States Courts, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

Experimentation on human beings is so difficult to justify that the attempt is seldom even made. Usually its justification is simply assumed, and vague notions of progress or national emergency are suggested as sufficient rationales. The United States, a society dedicated to both progress and human rights, has been profoundly ambivalent about human experimentation. On the one hand, we have consistently argued in our ethical codes that the rights and welfare of research subjects must be protected; on the other hand, we have consistently used perceived emergencies, both national and medical, as an excuse to jettison individual rights and welfare …