Introduction
Views on human experimentation have remained ambiguous since the beginning of the twentieth century till today. In “Mengele’s Birthmark: The Nuremberg Code in the United States Courts,” George J. Annas analyzes the history of legal practice regarding human experimentation through the prism of the Nuremberg Code. The article provides examples of frightening professional malpractices that were condoned in some cases. The piece also clearly shows that all national court systems, including the U.S., have many shortcomings that must be improved. Therefore, the article stresses the importance of ensuring human rights for people regardless of their health status or profession.
Personal Opinion on the Ideas from the Article
The Importance of Informed Consent in Medical Experimentation
The first idea from the article that I agree with is the significance of informed consent for experimentation. Although Annas states that a distinction between therapeutic and nontherapeutic experiments exists now, there can be cases when a court finds it difficult to make a relevant and just decision (22). After all, this fact emphasizes the crucial role of informed consent before risky health interventions. Moreover, the possibility of making a decision given to the caregiver of a legally incapable person can be considered a colossal advancement made in the twentieth century. It allows people to decide what to do with their health and lives.
Ensuring Human Rights Regardless of Occupation
The second claim I support connects with the previous idea and says that individuals should be ensured human rights, regardless of their profession. Some occupations, like mining or military, are associated with increased risk for adverse health effects, so people need to know this information. The example of the Navajo uranium miners and their unawareness of possible damages to health represents the case in which the Public Health Service’s negligence can cost health and lives and should have been punished (Annas 33-34). It also shows that human lives may become invaluable when the court decides that exposure to uranium can be a discretionary act, which suggests that judges may apply laws to particular cases in a controversial manner.
Governmental Violations of Human Rights in the Name of Security
The third statement has links with the second thought, namely, the violation of human rights by authorized institutions. It receives my support because it says that a state can literally sacrifice people for national security interests (Annas 44). The involvement of U.S. war prisoners in Japanese experiments with lethal biological weapons and disclosure of information in exchange for prosecution immunity is a vivid example (Annas 21).
On the one hand, I understand the American government and its intention to prevent potential risks for a larger population. On the other hand, the problem of testing biological warfare affected many war prisoners’ families, which disrupted their lives. Moreover, this case proves that, in addition to regulations like the Nuremberg Code, one needs to enhance control over the decisions of government officials, which can be regarded as crimes against humanity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the article analyzed demonstrates achievements and failures in protecting human rights from the perspective of the Nuremberg Code. Three useful ideas in the piece relate to improving legal foundations to make people’s lives and health more secure. Informed consent is not an approach to waiving responsibility from medical professionals, but to ensuring a patient’s right to know possible health threats. Human rights, especially for those with risky professions, must be ensured equally, despite the interests of third parties. Finally, the government can overstep morality in favor of its concerns, but this practice should be controlled to avoid undesirable sacrifices.
Work Cited
Annas, George J. “Mengele’s Birthmark: The Nuremberg Code in the United States Courts.” Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, vol. 7, no. 1, 1991, pp. 17-45.