Using data from the Nazis

[blike]

What do you guys think about using the data the Nazi's gathered during their experiments on live human subjects? Is it ethical and morally justifiable to use the data? Personally, I'm undecided. I mean, yes what they did was horrific, but is it so wrong if we use it to our benefit?

 

from http://remember.org/educate/medexp.html

 

Freezing Experiments:

 

"The freezing / hypothermia experiments were conducted for the Nazi high command. The experiments were conducted on men to simulate the conditions the armies suffered on the Eastern Front. .... The icy vat method proved to be the fastest way to drop the body temperature. The selections were made of young healthly Jews or Russians. They were usually stripped naked and prepared for the experiment. A insulated probe which measured the drop in the body temperature was inserted into the rectum. The probe was held in place by a expandable metal ring which was adjusted to open inside the rectum to hold the probe firmly in place. The victim was then placed in the vat of cold water and started to freeze. It was learned that most victims lost consciousness and died when the body temperature dropped to 25 C."

 

Internal Irrigation:

 

The frozen victim would have water heated to a near blistering temperature forcefully irrigated into the stomach, bladder, and intestines. All victims appeared to have died from the treatment.

 

Hot Bath:

 

The victim was placed in warm water and the temperature was slowly increased. This method proved to be the best. Many victims died do to shock if they were warmed up to quickly.

 

This is just some of the tests they did with freezing people. There are many many more horrific experiments that were performed.

 

children after subjection to experiments (GRAPHIC)

[Sayonara]

I'm not sure I want to follow those links.

 

 

I can't imagine what sort of research would require us to know such tolerances in human biology, but I can say that using the Nazi data is better than finding out for ourselves by duplicating the experiments.

[blike]

The first link just describes what I quoted. The second link is children who look severely burned or something.

 

I can't imagine what sort of research would require us to know such tolerances in human biology

 

Well, the freezing research could help with rescuing victims who are subjected to long periods of cold (avalanche, blizzards, etc)...I'm sure some scientists somewhere could find the data useful..

[Sayonara]

We already know freezing tolerances, I was referring to the whole boiling people's innards thing really

[blike]

ooh. I don't know about that. Theres more than just those few I mentioned though.

 

 

"The Experiments

Freezing / Hypothermia

Genetics

Infectious Diseases

Interrogation and Torture

Killing / Genocide

High Altitude

Pharmacological

Sterilization

Surgery

Traumatic Injuries"

[fafalone]

I don't think any of the data would be beneficial to what we know now; but personally if I was one of the victims I would want my death not to be in vain and possibly help someone.

[Radical Edward]

filling someones intestines with boiling water kills them....

 

......

 

 

no sh*t sherlock.

 

some of the data may have been useful. not so sure about now though. regardless of how it was obtained, it is now data, and can be used. I don't see why not. Anti-abortionists don't refuse vaccinations even though some of those were developed with the use of aborted foetuses.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

Anti-abortionists don't refuse vaccinations even though some of those were developed with the use of aborted foetuses.

People who describe themselves as being overtly Anti-[insert whatever here] can have a tendency to be ignorant yet self-righteous.

[fafalone]

I'm anti-ignorance. Quite a paradox if what you say is true.

[Sayonara]

I'm sure there must be some aspect of being ignorant of which you are ignorant.

 

Argh my head.

 

Actually, I would dispute your claim. When was the last time you marched around a bunch of stupid people with a placard reading "Say no to Ignorance - it's Just WRONG"?

 

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Actually, I would dispute your claim. When was the last time you marched around a bunch of stupid people with a placard reading "Say no to Ignorance - it's Just WRONG"?

 

 

What do you think I do with my time?

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

What do you think I do with my time?

Yes, but you I can explain away as a nutcase.

[DocBill]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

People who describe themselves as being overtly Anti-[insert whatever here] can have a tendency to be ignorant yet self-righteous.

 

Yes..this is obvious. Yet how is it you can see this so clearlly, yet state that "good scientists" are unbiased???

 

I am confussed here. perhaps you could enlighten me?

[Glider]

Originally posted by fafalone

I don't think any of the data would be beneficial to what we know now; but personally if I was one of the victims I would want my death not to be in vain and possibly help someone.

 

This is a good point. If the data are available and may be of benefit and possibly help to save lives, then I think it should be used. It's a tricky (and very sensitive) question though. It's possible that some may see using the data as in some way condoning that research, but wouldn't throwing it away be ensuring that those people died for nothing?

[Glider]

Originally posted by DocBill

Yes..this is obvious. Yet how is it you can see this so clearlly, yet state that "good scientists" are unbiased???

 

I am confussed here. perhaps you could enlighten me?

He never said 'good scientists are unbiased'. He said

Remaining objective is something all good scientists do every day.

Which is quite true. Whilst it is equally true that all people have biases, good scientists remain objective in their practice. Moreover, as they are aware that being people, they have biases, most research active scientists will adhere strictly to established research methodology to ensure objective research practice. Research methodology has developed (partially) to ensure that research remains unaffected by individual bias. A good example is the double-blind design. Moreover, at the end of the day, they all realise that their research will be reviewed by non-interested colleagues and peers. So whilst the scientist as an individual will surely have biases, the scientist as a 'good scientist' will remain objective. There are, of course, many exceptions, but then it is arguable whether or not these are 'good scientists'.

[greg1917]

Personally Id go with whatever victim's relatives wishes were. Having visited Auscwitz ive seen the industrialised death that epitomised the nazi party and the blind hatred with which it treated its slaves. Nazism is a cancer of humanity and the dilema of what to do with the horrifically acquired data is one nazi germanys legacies of evil.

 

If relatives (or even survivng victims if any remain) feel that to release the data would impersonalise those who underwent painful deaths to collect it in the first place, i would have no real desire to engage in a protracted argument in what is clearly an immensely sore area of history for jews, Poles, Russians and the rest of the assortment of people butchered and massacred by the Third Reich. I think its inevitable some dark corners of society would use the release of the data as a claim that the nazi party was not the genocidal murdering war machine history has correctly labelled it as, but instead carried out vital research necessary to improve our quality of life. In short i think the most important thing here is to respect victims wishes.

 

Is there a prevailing body who believe the data could be of use? I was aware of the temperature experiments carried out on prisoners but their must be an array of studies carried out on humans that most people are not even aware were carried out. I suppose one of the problems is assessing how useful the data actually is. If its use would lead to only minor scientific gain or slight increases in efficiency, victims would rightly feel their suffering was worth more than a meagre profit increase for companies. If on the other hand it clearly would be of great use, victims might feel their suffering was in vain if the results were not published. the difficulty is in assessing how useful the information is, not purely how wrong or right releasing it is.

[atinymonkey]

It's a bit of a moot point, as the research has been used for the past 50 years. It's nothing new, the Allies fought over the access to this information. The most visible use of Nazi information is the NASA rocket research and the Apollo moon shot. I've read that the research during the war (on both sides, in medicine and science) was the equivalent of a 70 year jump in the space of 7 years.

 

The concept of plastic surgery was created, developed and utilised during the 2nd world war on both sides (as an example).

 

I agree totally that the use of the information should have been at the general consent of the relatives of those interned in the concentration camps and the survivors. However, if medical science benefits, it a small shred of something that can be taken away from the cancer of humanity that caused the unimaginable suffering. It's an epitaph, rather than a exploitation.

 

Well, I hope to God that it is. I don't think anyone would want to think they benifit from the Natzis.

[Glider]

What he said :bravo:

[KHinfcube22]

I think we should colect the data. The itself is not bad, but the way the got it. Of course one can't really say that their methods will never be used again. Say some alien beings came to earth, would we not disect them? Would we not try to find all their limits in resistence? We would repeat everything the Nazis did in their expirments to provide some sort of infrmation on what we do not know.

 

I'm not saying the Nazis we right in their doing, they did what they believed to be right, and to critisize them and call them terribly evil would also be wrong.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

I'm not saying the Nazis we right in their doing, they did what they believed to be right, and to critisize them and call them terribly evil would also be wrong.

 

Why? They acted as to the antithesis of our supposed moral code.

[KHinfcube22]

But they were acting for what theythought was right. In what you are saying MrL is that the Amish are also correct in saying you are terribly evil for using a computer and that is going against their moral code.

[JaKiri]

By their moral code, I am.

 

Your point being?

[greg1917]

But they were acting for what theythought was right. In what you are saying MrL is that the Amish are also correct in saying you are terribly evil for using a computer and that is going against their moral code

 

This is outrageous revisionism - the nazis were not acting for what they thought was right. the german public was brainwashed by a web of lies, deciet with blind hatred and rascism thinly disguised as morally justified patriotism. Thus I am perfectly justified in calling the nazis a cancer on humanity, evil, a vile and putrid stain on european history etc. they did not do what they thought was right. They were selfish, expansionist b******s. Dont claim anything otherwise.

[KHinfcube22]

One can't say something is wrong, and be correct, unless the truly understand all standpoints in the conflict, this is also vice-versa.

[blike]

Actually, one can't say what is wrong without there being some sort of universal standard.