The Nazi Medicine - Research Paper Example

The Nazi Medicine Despite complete ignorance of morals employed, the research done by the Nazi scientists should be used if, and only if, the scientific method was followed in the discovery of the data. World War II brought with it many dilemmas and controversies. Where on the one side it was a source of triumph and victory, it was also a cause of great concerns even after the war came to an end. The Nazi experiments are one of the consequences of the World War II which requires a great deal of attention. After the war, the Nazi doctors were charged with the guilt of carrying out ‘premeditated murder’ and hence they were declared as the ‘evil men’ of the time. The resulting research that came about through the Nazi experiments was eyed with great suspicion and scientists even today are asked to justify their use of the Nazi methods when they employ them. It is viewed as something that is not socially responsible and is an abuse to the science community itself. So the question that arises is that is it alright to use the work of Nazis in the medical field or is it a moral degradation in itself? (Adshead, and Brown 109). The very fact that the ‘data’ that was obtained by the Nazis to conduct their research was nothing but torture and pain is a factor in itself to condemn the Nazi research and its subsequent scientific hypotheses. The dead bodies were frozen, sterilized and inseminated and hence the bodies were more of a subject to torture and humiliation. This situation can very well be put in to an example- it is just as a human consumes a piece of meat and gets rid of the remains in a shabby fashion; the medicines and other research depict the same- the bodies were used to the benefit of the Nazis and then the remains discarded as ‘unwanted’. The subjects were tortured in multiple manners: Firstly, they were made to be observed against their will and were dragged into dangerous experiments. Secondly, the experiments were designed in such a manner that the subjects would deliberately be put through a lot of suffering and fatal outcomes. Thirdly, all the subjects had to necessarily undergo mutilation and tremendous pain. Amidst such situations, how can one justify the use of the results obtained by these Nazis? (Evans 357) The biggest controversy in using the research of the Nazis revolves around the passive external re warming and active external warming. The passive external re warming is when the research methods use the warmth of the patients’ bodies to complete the research whereas the active external re warming is the use of some outside source to get the body some heat in order to complete the experimentation. Among the outside sources, doctors have come about using methods such as warming the bodies in microwave ovens, using warm blankets on the subjects, putting warm fluids into the bodies of the individuals or even performing surgeries to that effect.Pozo, a doctor had come about finding the means to warm up the human bodies which had been frozen but his research was confined to the use of animals as subjects. The Nazis were the only one who had made some hypothesis about frozen bodies through experimentation on real humans; what they would do is beyond imagination: they would throw their subjects into extremely cold waters and let them freeze out. When they emitted mucus or fainted, the Nazi researchers would record how their changes in heart rates were to be recorded, how their body temperatures shifted, how their muscles responded to this fall in temperature and how their urine outflow was impacted (Annas, and Grodin 197). The results of the Nazi researchers are subject to a lot of debate: a vast majority of researchers don’t regard the Nazi research as scientific and consider it to be more of a ‘pseudo- science’. This is largely because of the fact that the results obtained have not been recorded formally anywhere, that the subjects were put under extreme strain such that they could have responded completely opposite as to how they would have responded in normal circumstances and lastly, the inhuman political motives behind these activities render the very thought of these experiments to be invalid. Richard Evans in his three volume history of the Nazi regime talks about how the political motives of Hitler were inculcated these very scientific research methods whereby the prisoners were locked in camps and used to the benefit of the researchers. Therefore, if the research results were neither scientific, were not obtained from any reliable source, nor were they humane, they have all the reason to be rejected and not be catered to (Evans380). The Nazi science is considered to be a ‘bad’ science; for the plain reasons that it employed means that would probably not even be implemented on animals nowadays. However, if the results that were obtained carried a good degree of science with them, they could be considered as pertinent to the scientific world and hence this very science may be labeled as ‘good’ science too. Why? Because science is simply a tool scientists employ in order to make logical deductions about reality and to reach conclusions about nature. It can be used for the good as well as for the bad. This very science is praised when it is used for growing of crops, growing of fruits and curing life threatening diseases such as cancer and leukemia (Friedlander 16). The question that then arises is that how were these scientific deductions justified by the Nazi doctors at that time? The answer lies in the very fact that science was one of the most prevalent subjects at the time in Germany. Hitler, himself, had encouraged scientific developments in the fields of physics and chemistry since he was good at science too. Moreover, there was a widespread acknowledgment that some of the humans were definitely lower in class and social status to the others. Hence, it was considered perfectly normal for the privileged class of citizens to torture the unprivileged ones (Shirer 160). Some drastic breakthroughs in medicine can be attributed to the Nazi eras and quite obviously, people in today’s era will be thankful to the Nazis for lending their knowledge in these regards. These breakthroughs include the relationship between lung cancer and smoking. This is further elaborated by Robert Proctor in his book ‘ The Nazi War On Cancer’ where he says that the Nazis, even before the evolution of scientific technology, were operating on optimal levels and were countering horrendous diseases such as cancer in the most effective manner (Proctor 27). Robert Proctor also talks about how the Nazis initiated the use of natural resources in order to answer the many health problems humans face in their day to day lives. Additionally, Ben Stein supports the scientific research obtained by saying that it’s not the scientific methods that are at fault it is the intentions of the people that matter the most- good people would end up with good results for the good of the community at large whereas bad people would end up taking up all the negative aspects and would eventually harm the community at large. The same is applied to the Nazi research- there are good as well as bad aspects to it. The point to consider is that only those aspects should be considered which have complete relevance to the scientific world and whose hypotheses can be clearly justified. Unjustifiable scientific data coming from the Nazi world or from anywhere for that matter, is subject to a lot of questions and clarifications and can create a huge amount of doubt for that particular experiment (Cohen 103,126). Another opponent of the Nazi research can be found in Doctor Jay Katz at the Yale University who says that the research was clearly of ‘no scientific value’. His opinion is corroborated by General Telford Taylor who takes humanity in high regard and concludes that such advancements which take the bare support of just the inhuman practices cannot be trusted at all and hence such practices such be nullified altogether ( Doctor Jay Katz, Telford Taylor) Henceforth, we may conclude that the Nazi practices were unjustified to a very large extent. However, they have given rise to three main categories: (1) the pseudo-science category (2) The ‘good’ science category and (3) the ‘bad’ science category. It therefore becomes imperative for scientists and researchers in the respective fields to pick and choose the exact research which is ‘good’ and is supported by a good amount of evidence and proofs and is not just a mere false result of the tortures inflicted on the prisoners of war or the soldiers of World War II. There might be bad aspects of even the ‘good’ science but it has to be kept in mind that one has to lose something in order to get something, in order to ace something. So, by and large, only the Nazi research which is substantiated by pure scientific evidence is worthy of being considered in the realm of further studies (Evans 415). Works Cited Adshead, Gwen, and Christine Brown. Ethical Issues in Forensic Mental Health Research. London: J. Kingsley Publishers, 2003. Print. Annas, George J, and Michael A. Grodin. The Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Print. Cohen, B. "The Ethics of Using Medical Data from Nazi Experiments." Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society. (1990): 103-26. Print. Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. New York: Penguin Press, 2004. Print. Top of Form Friedlander, Henry. The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. Print. Proctor, Robert. The Nazi War on Cancer. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1999. Print. Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Top of Form Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960. Print. Top of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Read More